Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to each hon. Member who asks a supplementary question to ask one that is in fact only one supplementary question. That will enable us to make better progress.

WALES

County Hospital, Griffithstown

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales why tenders for the needed extensions at the County Hospital, Griffithstown have been delayed three times; and what action is being taken to expedite the commencement of the required building work.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): The tenders were higher than we would have wished and

it was necessary to examine the reasons for this very closely. Within the last few days my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to give his approval and the building work will start very shortly.

Mr. Abse: I thank my hon. Friend for his effective intervention, which I am sure will be much appreciated in Pontypool, where it is a matter of urgency that we have the new surgical units. Can my hon. Friend tell us the amount involved in these extensions to the hospital? May I also thank him for his intervention in education? This week Pontypool has certainly had a great deal to thank the Labour Government for.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend. The total cost of the replacement operating theatre and the X-ray department will be nearly £1 million. My hon. Friend has campaigned for them for some years.

Welsh Assembly (Elections)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what he expects the cost of the elections to the Welsh Assembly will be.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): The cost of the initial Assembly elections was estimated for the purposes of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Wales Bill as broadly £0·7 million.

Mr. Knox: Would the cost of the elections be any different if they were conducted under proportional representation? Will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his colleagues that the amendment made in another place on that issue should be retained, because proportional representation is clearly a much fairer system of election than the first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Alec Jones: As for the principle of proportional representation, an amendment has been passed in another place; but the Government and this House will be making their decision on all the amendments from another place very shortly. I have no figures for the relative costs of both systems. The hon. Gentleman must try to persuade the House in far stronger terms than those with which he tried on the last occasion.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the comments made by some of his hon. Friends about the cost of the Assembly, will the Under-Secretary agree that £0·7 million is a very small price to pay for democratising government in Wales?

Mr. Alec Jones: I certainly agree that £0·7 million is a small price to pay for the increase in democratic accountability, which is one of the main functions and purposes of the devolution Bill.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Goverment reject the proportional representation amendment, because we should not try in such a Bill to change our electoral system? On the question of cost, have the Government any view on whether aid should be given to the two organisations that may well be set up to campaign for or against the Assembly?

Mr. Alec Jones: If aid were to be given to various organisations, legislation would be needed. There is no provision for it in the Bill. I take my hon. Friend's point, that the House has already expressed its view on proportional representation. We now have merely to consider our attitude to the amendment carried in another place.

Sir A. Meyer: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree, none the less, that proportional representation would ensure that there was a much fairer representation in the Assembly?

Mr. Alec Jones: No, Sir.

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the number of people unemployed in the Cardiff area.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): As I informed the hon. Member on 3rd April, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) received a deputation led by the Lord Mayor last November, and my Department has continued to keep in close touch with the local authorities. Several correspondents have also referred to this matter.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Secretary of State accept the view of the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce that the disastrous decline in industrial jobs in Cardiff would best be reversed by small, labour-intensive units? Does he consider that the hope of reward in the form of tax cuts is essential to attract the entrepreneurs, including recently compensated redundant steel workers, into new businesses to create jobs for Cardiff?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to welcome the enormous amount of money—£13 million—that the Government have made available to meet the results of the steel closures which have been accelerated. As regards tax cuts, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the last Budget, offered a great deal of assistance to small businesses. I am sure that that will have an effect.

Mr. Roderick: Has my right hon. and learned Friend made an estimate of the additional numbers who would become unemployed in Cardiff and in Wales generally should the Tory Party's proposals for cuts in public expenditure be carried?

Mr. Morris: It is not possible to make such an estimate. As I understand it, there is a fierce argument going on inside the Shadow Cabinet between the axe-men and those who are likely to be axed. The public expenditure cuts for which the Tory Party is looking seem to range from £2,500 million to £4,000 million. In any of these contingencies Wales, which is so dependent on public expenditure, would undoubtedly suffer terribly if we


had the misfortune of a Tory Government.

Mr. Grist: Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave imbalance in Cardiff between the service and manufacturing sectors in employment? Will he take account of the fact that there is agreement between the Labour and Conservative Parties over the need for the movement of the Ministry of Defence to Cardiff, which is in contrast to the attitude taken by Plaid Cymru?

Mr. Morris: I find it difficult to understand how anyone who cares for the future of Cardiff and who is aware of the need to provide more employment could oppose the decentralisation of Government Departments to Wales. We have a very good record in this respect with regard to Swansea, Cardiff and Newport. Both directly and indirectly, this proposal will prove to be a great help to the Cardiff area.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment figure in Mid-Wales is very high indeed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is to do with the Cardiff area.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, by virtue of being the capital city of Wales, Cardiff has disproportionately more jobs in the Civil Service, in Government Departments and in the private sector than a city of similar size in the provinces of England? Will he therefore agree that, by creating more jobs, the Welsh Assembly will be for the benefit of the people of Cardiff?

Mr. Morris: We need to bring more jobs to Cardiff generally, whether by way of Government dispersal, by way of Government assistance to meet the cost of steel plant closures, by development of the surrounding areas of Llantrisant or by the siting of Ford at Bridgend, within 20 miles of the city of Cardiff. In all of these ways we must continue the drive to ensure that there is an improvement in the job potential of Cardiff.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Secretary of State spoke of a bracket of £2,500 million to £4,000 million of possible public expenditure cuts. Since that was almost exactly the bracket which covered his own Government's public expenditure

cuts, forced on them by the IMF, may I ask him to tell us what effect those cuts had on unemployment in Wales?

Mr. Morris: The unemployment figures in Wales are well known. If the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the activity now going on in the Shadow Cabinet means that it is trying to discover further public expenditure cuts, he should put a figure to this so that we know where we stand.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for (a) males, (b) females and (c) school leavers unemployed in Wales.

Mr. John Morris: This June there were 60,633 men and 25,901 women, totalling 86,534 unemployed in Wales. These figures include 6,307 school leavers.

Mr. Roberts: Now that the Government have agreed, after a great deal of vacillation, not to impose the 2½ per cent. increase in the employers' national insurance contribution, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have a look at other deterrents to employment such as the Employment Protection Act? If he does not believe me when I say that that Act is a deterrent, may I ask him to consult employers?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will have read some of the articles which have recently been written concerning the effect of the Employment Protection Act, showing that it has no significant effect upon the provision of jobs. I am sure that one of the greatest deterrents acting upon those who want to come to Wales is the fear that there may be a Tory Government who will want to impose cuts in the industrial assistance that we are giving and who will want to reduce the assistance that we are giving to job creation. People are also frightened that any chance of building the A55 in North Wales would disappear over the horizon if the Tory Party came into office.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I appreciate that the problem of unemployment among school leavers is serious, but may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend has been able to work out any estimate of how this figure would increase if the Conservative Party's public expenditure proposals were implemented?

Mr. Morris: That is not possible until the Tory Party manifesto sees the light of day and we know which side of the Shadow Cabinet has won. I want to know whether those who now occupy the Tory Front Bench are axemen or are liable to be axed. Then I would know what was likely to happen.

Mr. Geraint Howells: While appreciating the problems of Cardiff, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the number of school leavers in Mid-Wales and the corresponding unemployment figure? Is he satisfied that the financial resources of the Development Board for Rural Wales are great enough to ensure that it can stem depopulation and create jobs for young people in the future?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that the hon. Member welcomes the additional £700,000 which I announced last Wednesday for the Development Board for Rural Wales. It is up to the board to spend the money made available to it. If it were able to spend more, I would be most anxious to provide more money. Given the determination of the Manpower Services Commission and the resources provided to it and its area boards by the Government, I should like an indication from both sides of the House that the commission will be helped in its task of finding jobs or alternative occupations for young people this coming autumn.

Sir Raymond Gower: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be anxious about the possibility of trouble arising from cuts in public expenditure by a Tory Government, may I ask him to recollect that when taxation was severely cut by a former Conservative Chancellor—Mr. Butler as he then was—it was followed by a decade of unparalleled prosperity?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows how little progress was made with the country's economy in those 13 wasted years. Will the hon. Gentleman help me? Will he give me some assurance before election day, whenever it comes, about which areas of public expenditure will suffer in Wales?

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the

numbers of people unemployed within the county of South Glamorgan and in the town of Barry, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: I have received several representations relating to unemployment in South Glamorgan but no separate representations about unemployment in Barry—save that the hon. Member has another Parliamentary Question down today.

Sir R. Gower: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since the end of the last war the areas of South Glamorgan and the part around Barry have escaped the worst scourge of unemployment which has affected the valleys? Is he also aware that now, for the first time since the war, those areas are experiencing unemployment figures and problems comparable with the other areas? Will he take account of this fact when considering the allocation of grants and so on for Wales in the future?

Mr. Morris: Certainly. I am well aware of the problem, and the worsening of the problem, since the accelerated closure of East Moors. That is why I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to welcome the additional moneys—£13 million—that have been made available for assisting the very areas with which he is concerned.

Welsh Language

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken actively to promote widespread public discussion on the recommendations in the report "Dyfodol I'r laith Gymraeg—A Future for the Welsh Language"; if he will call regional conferences to discuss the recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: The report has been given wide publicity and follow-up comment in newspapers and on radio and television. Written statements from interested bodies and individuals will be welcomed by my Department. I do not think that another round of conferences would carry matters further. It could only duplicate much of the useful work already carried out by the Council for the Welsh Language.

Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the desperate need for


the establishment of the permanent body which was recommended by the Council for the Welsh Language in view of the critical position of the Welsh Language? In particular, will he ensure that there is a speedy start on the recommendations affecting publicity, education for children under five years of age, television programmes for children and the use of the fourth channel in Wales for showing mainly Welsh language programmes?

Mr. Morris: Having received the report of the council, I believe that it is right to await the reactions of a host of interested bodies throughout Wales. We should wait to see what people have to say. Broadcasting is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He proposes to publish a White Paper on this. Dealing with aid for the Welsh language generally, I believe that this Government can hold their head high. Compared with a total of about £24,000 in 1973–74, this year—when we include the grant to the National Eisteddfod—we shall have gone over the £500,000 mark. This includes grants for Urdd Gobaith Cymru, the playgroups and also support for Welsh books. That is the significance of the support for the coming year.

Land Authority Transactions

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many acres of land have been bought by the Land Commission in Wales; how much has been sold to builders; and how many houses have been built on this land.

Mr. Alec Jones: The land policy statement published by the Land Authority for Wales shows that the authority has acquired about 900 acres of land since it began trading in August 1976. Disposals to 31st March 1978 amounted to 227 acres, of which about 55 acres were for residential development. I understand that construction of dwellings has started on a number of sites and that completions have already been achieved on two; further details can be obtained from the Land Authority.

Mr. Costain: With even that miserable record looking good beside the pathetic record of the English equivalent, as the Department of the Environment is apparently so proud of its efficiency as the worst Government Department, will the hon. Gentleman tell it how to get on

with its job, or abolish the Act and get rid of the Land Authority?

Mr. Alec Jones: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "miserable" to describe the activities of the Land Authority for Wales. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to an article in the Financial Times last Friday which paid tribute to the work of the authority, indicated that it had exceeded both its targets for acquisition and its targets for disposals, and added that it was popular with the building industry.

Mr. Speaker: For the sake of the record, I should point out that it is not in order to ask Ministers to pass messages to other Departments.

Advance Factories (Arfon and Dwyfor)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps have been taken during the past four years by his Department or by agencies responsible to him to provide employment in the advance factories which are standing empty in the Arfon and Dwyfor areas.

Mr. John Morris: My Department and the Welsh Development Agency do all they can, through advertising and personal contact, to impress on industrialists the advantages of the North Wales special development area, and of the four advance factories in Arfon and Dwyfor which are at present standing empty.

Mr. Wigley: But would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that these factories have been standing empty for far too long, and that those initiatives which have shown any enterprise in them have come mainly from local enterprises, county, borough and district councils and not from the Welsh Development Agency? In the circumstances, will be instruct the agency to attract industry to this area of high unemployment?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not within the power of the agency to direct industry. The hon. Gentleman referred to empty factories. One at Arfon and one at Dwyfor have been brought to the attention of 126 industrialists and have been visited by seven. One of the factories is subject to


two applications, which are being considered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that the large adcance factory at Blaenau Ffestiniog and two units at Penrhyndeudraeth in Gwynedd have recently been allocated after a great deal of effort, going back, certainly as far as the Blaenau Ffestiniog factory is concerned, for many years.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue the policy of building advance factories prior to requirement, because sometimes incoming industrialists want factories immediately? Will he tell the WDA that that is a method of attracting a great deal of industry into Wales at a time of serious world recession?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There has been an enormous increase in lettings. As I told the Welsh Grand Committee only last Wednesday, the rate is averaging about four a week. I will certainly continue the programme of building advance factories. More than 400 have been announced, and the programme will be continued because they are needed. The availability of advance factories is one of the most significant factors for industrialists when deciding whether to move to a certain area.

Devolution (Referendum)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on current progress towards arrangements for a referendum on devolution.

Mr. Alec Jones: Under Sechedule 12 to the Wales Bill, a draft order making provision for the conoduct of the referendum must be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.

Sir A. Meyer: Since the Government, for reasons of electoral expediency, are now following the lead given, with totally misguided conviction, by Plaid Cymru, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the voters who consider the scheme for an elected Welsh Assembly both expensive and impractical have no other recourse than to vote Conservative?

Mr. Alec Jones: Anyone who gives advice to the people to vote Tory at the next election must want his head

examined. On the question of an elected Assembly for Wales, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Party in Wales was on record, long before there was a Plaid Cymru Member of Parliament, as calling for a directly-elected Assembly because we saw it as an extension of democracy—a word not exactly popular with the Conservative Party.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department or any other Department yet had discussions with the broadcasting authorities about their intensions in the coming devolution referendum? How is the balance of views to be controlled on programmes broadcast into Wales by Granada Television, Westward Television, and so on?

Mr. Alec Jones: The question of equity in broadcasting is a matter for the broadcasting authorities themselves. I am sure that they will note the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Mr. Abse: In order to dispel the view that the only way to prevent the Welsh Assembly is to vote Tory at the next election, may I ask my hon. Friend to make it clear that, by voting for very many Labour Members in Wales, not to mention some silent Ministers, the voters can be assured that there will be a vigorous fight in this House and in the referendum to ensure that, with Labour electors' support, there will be no Welsh bureaucratic Assembly?

Mr. Alec Jones: I think that the proper body to decide whether there shall be an elected Assembly for Wales is not a few odd people on either side of the House but the people of Wales themselves, and this House will, I hope, give them the opportunity to do that through the referendum.

Nominated Bodies

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the future of the nominated bodies in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: None in recent months, Sir.

Mr. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some confusion over whether, if the Assembly is created, the nominated bodies will cease to exist or will continue with the Assembly? Whether


or not the people vote for an Assembly, the composition of these nominated bodies is causing some concern. There are accusations that these bodies are dominated by Labour or, on the other hand, that not sufficient Labour representatives are on them. Will my hon. Friend look into the question of how—irrespective of the Assembly—we can get the nominated bodies to be more representative of the people of Wales?

Mr. Alec Jones: It was an essential part of the devolution proposals that we should make the nominated bodies more democratically accountable. It is also true to say that amendments have been made in another place which are having some impact on that intention. We shall have to take account of those amendments. It is true that reference is frequently made to the composition of nominated bodies in Wales. But when one is attacked on one side for doing too much of one thing and attacked on the other side for doing too much of another thing, perhaps sitting somewhere in the middle is as near comfort as is possible.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we on this Bench believe that the question of making the nominated bodies accountable to the Welsh Assembly is one of the most attractive features of the Government's devolution policy?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say so. It was the composition of such bodies—I am not referring to the people personally—that produced these fears.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Recently in the Welsh Grand Committee, the Minister spoke of the desirability of keeping the Arts Council at arm's length from Government and avoiding any Government domination of the arts. Is he not therefore a little concerned by the revelation of Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge in another place that the arts in future may be in the hands of a Department of Culture?

Mr. Alec Jones: Fortunately, I am not responsible for what is said in another place, hut, having heard the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the composition of nominated bodies, I was fascinated to hear that the Tory Party is drawing up a "good and great" list of

individuals sympathetic to the Tory cause who might serve on these nominated bodies.

Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question about the Arts Council, which he has not even referred to?

Mr. Alec Jones: We had a long debate on the work of the Arts Council in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee, when the hon. Gentleman implied that my right hon. and learned Friend was responsible for appointing Labour members as chairmen of panels. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend is not responsible for appointing these chairmen.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his impression that nomination to these so-called bodies has been one of the means over the years whereby the Tory Party has been able to exercise a certain control over the length and breadth of Wales, despite being repeatedly defeated at the polls?

Mr. Alec Jones: I go further. I believe that it is far more than an impression it is a fact.

Inner Cities

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales which local authority areas in Wales he has selected for partnership or other special programmes of action following the publication of Command Paper No. 6845, "Policy for the Inner Cities".

Mr. Alec Jones: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 19th May when he explained that he intends to designate five areas under the Inner Urban Areas Bill, should it be enacted. The five areas are Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff, Newport, Rhondda and Swansea.

Mr. Thomas: I accept that information, but would not the Minister agree that the Welsh Office is not displaying the kind of coherent, concerted approach towards inner urban problems that is being displayed by the Department of the Environment in England?

Mr. Alec Jones: No. What my right hon. and learned Friend has done in this case is to say that we accept that there


are many communities in Wales which need special help under this sort of programme, but our aim in designating these five areas was to try to ensure that we could help those with the worst problems, both in scale and in intensity.

Mr. Grist: In view of the fact that the original Act brings in only £80 million over four years, can the Minister say how much money will actually be made available to the Cardiff area?

Mr. Alec Jones: It is not possible to make that sort of statement at present, because we have already decided that we shall hold consultations with the local authority associations to see how the extra money which will be available next year for the urban aid programme can best be used to deal with the problems not only in Cardiff and the other four areas but in the whole of Wales.

M4 (Beechwood Estate, Newport)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will erect a sound barrier on the M4 motorway adjoining the Beechwood Estate, Newport, Gwent in order to prevent further noise nuisance and damage to property.

Mr. Barry Jones: The need for a sound barrier and other noise insulation measures in connection with the widening of the M4 will be considered during the design phase of the scheme for widening the M4 motorway between Coldra and Malpas. Work on this scheme is not expected to start before 1980.

Mr. Hughes: I agree with the widening of the M4, which is absolutely necessary to the development of the Welsh economy, but will my hon. Friend appreciate that the people of the Beechwood Estate have suffered very much and have been very modest in their demands? Will he therefore ensure that in the future development of the motorway the erection of the sound barrier which those residents are now requesting is carried through?

Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend has raised the question of the Beechwood Estate before. At present we have no powers to provide the insulation in respect of the road as it is at present. However, I shall look very carefully at the matter in the context of the future scheme.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that resources are not diverted from the top priority of improving the A55 in North Wales?

Mr. Barry Jones: I can assure the House that the availability of funds in relation to the development of roads in Wales will ensure that there is a fair share for North Wales.

Job Creation

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, out of the total of 63,000 jobs that he told the Welsh Grand Committee had been provided in Wales by Government special measures over a period of years, what is the maximum that he estimates have been provided at any one time; and how many he calculates are being provided at the moment.

Mr. John Morris: The best estimate available is that in June about 310,000 people in Great Britain were being assisted, out of a cumulative total of about 900,000 people since 1975. Assuming the same proportion in Wales, the equivalent figure is about 21,000.

Mr. Edwards: Is not it misleading for the Secretary of State to talk of the 63,000 jobs that have been saved in Wales over a period of years when it is now clear that only a comparatively small fraction of the total is saved at any one particular moment? Would not it be more honest and informative to give the figures on exactly the same basis as those for unemployment, namely, those on the register as actually employed at any particular moment in time?

Mr. Morris: I do not think it is misleading at all. These figures arise because some schemes start at different dates. People come in through the temporary employment subsidy and then the schemes come to an end. We have given this estimate of the number of jobs that have been saved over a period. It is not helpful to use the word "dishonest". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might consider axing whoever briefs him because, perhaps on a very good briefing from Conservative Central Office, he seeks to add the number of people unemployed in Wales to the 60,000 jobs that have been saved in order to indicate that there are 150,000 people in Wales without jobs.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the Secretary of State accent that with 90,000 people unemployed in Wales it would be far better to use them to build houses which are needed for people on council house waiting lists, to improve the 107,000 houses which are unfit and to build the many miles of motorway which are needed in Wales rather than paying them about £80 a week on average, taking all the benefits together, for staying on the dole?

Mr. Morris: I would be the first to agree with the hon. Gentleman that one would have hoped that more houses would have been built in Wales in the last two years. Increased resources were made available over a two-year period—significant amounts of money were made available—but regrettably and unhappily those resources were not taken up. If they had been, they would have had an effect on unemployment.

Wales Trades Union Congress

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the Wales Trades Union Congress.

Mr. John Morris: I met representatives of the Wales TUC last Wednesday.

Mr. Grist: When the Secretary of State next meets the Wales TUC, either as Secretary of State or as a party leader in Wales, will he work out with it how an extension of nationalisation and State control, according to the Labour Party programme, can actually save and create jobs in Wales as opposed to losing jobs, which it seems to have done over the last 20 years?

Mr. Morris: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has ever met the Wales TUC, But I can assure him that it is in the lead in making proposals both to save jobs and to ensure that there is a better balance of employment in Wales. I am most grateful to the Wales TUC for its co-operation—

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: It is a pity that the figures get worse and worse all the time.

Mr. Morris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. I am most grateful for the co-operation of the Wales TUC as well as that of employers' organisations.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity of assuring the Wales TUC, and those of us who will be attending the one-day conference on industrial-related diseases to be held by the Wales TUC at Llanberis next Friday, of the support of his Department for initiatives to establish a compensation fund for slate quarrying?

Mr. Morris: I have listened to the representations that have been made, and I am very concerned indeed, as is my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment. The Wales TUC is very concerned about these issues, as I am. It would bring enormous relief to the Wales TUC if it could be reassured that there would not be a Conservative Government and if hon. Members who are now on the Conservative Front Bench made it clear whether they were axemen with regard to public expenditure in Wales.

Bilingual Schools

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many children attend bilingual schools in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: In January 1978, the 60 schools in Wales that are officially designated as bilingual had 15,640 pupils. These figures do not include schools in Welsh-speaking areas that are, to a greater or lesser extent, bilingual in character.

Mr. Howells: I am delighted that so many children in Wales attend bilingual schools. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will agree that it would be a wonderful achievement if all Welsh children were able to have bilingual education by the end of this century. What further plans has he to help local education authorities in the future?

Mr. Barry Jones: I hope that I can please the hon. Gentleman by telling him that the number of pupils attending designated bilingual schools has risen by 87 per cent. since 1970. As to the future, we have asked local education authorities for detailed information about their present policies and practices as part of the wide-ranging curriculum review. When we receive that sort of information, my right hon. and learned Friend and I will want to consider what further


guidance and advice we shall give to the local education authorities.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Minister remind the Welsh local education authorities of the consensus that two-stream schools have not proved as successful as schools which are one community, particularly from the standpoint of the Welsh language? Wherever the Welsh language is used as a medium, will he press those authorities to do so through Welsh medium schools?

Mr. Barry Jones: May I outline briefly but bluntly the policy as we see it? It is my right hon. and learned Friend's policy to encourage the local education authorities to make bilingual provision which is in keeping with the linguistic characteristics of their areas as well as having regard to parents' wishes. We do not bully the local education authorities. They have a fair amount of leeway to make up their own minds. However, the Department is not insensitive to the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has expressed.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Can the Minister say why only one local education authority has submitted a statement on its linguistic policy as requested by June this year?

Mr. Barry Jones: These statements will be made quite soon.

CIVIL SERVICE

Trade Unions

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he next expects to meet leaders of the Civil Service trade unions.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects next to meet the representatives of Civil Service trade unions.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I am in regular contact with representatives of the Civil Service unions.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister discuss with the trade unions the question of who decides the so-called "first division" of the Civil Service—the top 3,000 or so? Is he aware that between 1971 and 1975

the number of applicants from Oxford and Cambridge was 25 per cent. of those applying, yet more than 50 per cent. were accepted? This is bound to be the case when there is a majority of full-time civil servants on the selection panel. Will the Minister tell the Prime Minister, who seems to be drawing up the Labour Party manifesto these days, that we want to see a greater degree of accountability and democracy in the selection of these top posts?

Mr. Morris: On the selection of entrants to the administrative trainee grade of the Civil Service, I accept my hon. Friend's general contention that there appears to be a statistical bias in favour of what I would call Oxbridge entrants. But the fact remains that, while not all of our most able people come from Oxford and Cambridge, the figures provided for the Expenditure Sub-Committee demonstrate that these universities still attract more than their share of able school leavers, measured by A-level grades obtained. I am satisfied that the Civil Service Commission operates in a wholly impartial manner in the selection process.

Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service staff side and the Civil Service Union in particular, will he have further discussions on the subject of dispersal? This is causing a great deal of concern particularly among those civil servants who must uproot their homes to go to other parts of the country. Often they have teenage children and are moving to areas of high unemployment. Their movement there does not help to create employment. Will my right hon. Friend have more talks and ensure that people are able to volunteer whenever they can to take part in dispersal operations?

Mr. Morris: I am happy to meet any of the Civil Service unions on the question of dispersal. I understand the difficulties for individual civil servants in London and the South-East, but I assure my hon. Friend that it is hoped that Government policy will operate on a wholly voluntary service.

Mr. Rhodes James: First, may I say that we are all very pleased that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has returned? He has a great deal of respect and affection on this side of the House.


Does the Minister agree that a well-paid, fairly-treated and respected Civil Service with a high morale is vital to the economic revival of this country, particularly in the elimination of waste in public expenditure? Is he aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House share his concern about the maintenance and expansion of an efficient and high-morale Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: I am very grateful for the hon. Member's comments. I share his views about the wholly regrettable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). However, my hon. Friend is here so often that I did not notice that he had been away.

Mr. Speaker: Without offence to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I want to second what has been said by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James).

Mr. Ioan Evans: When my right hon. Friend meets the Civil Service trade union leaders, will he allay the fears aroused by the Leader of the Opposition that a future Conservative Government would be prepared to restrict Civil Service and public service wages but to leave the private sector alone? Although this is an academic proposal, I still hope that my right hon. Friend will allay their fears.

Mr. Morris: I feel that the Leader of the Opposition made a monumental gaffe in her Penistone speech when she outlined the Tory Party's approach to pay policy and suggested that the Civil Service, the nationalised industries and the public sector generally should be restrained by strict cash limits. That policy would involve double standards and discrimination against 6 million workers.

Mr. Tim Renton: In his discussions with the relevant trade union leaders, has the Minister given thought to the question whether Civil Service inflation-proof pensions should be funded? These pensions form an increasingly important part of the total remuneration of civil servants. Is it not an anomaly that they are not funded for civil servants but are funded for local authorities' and nationalised industries' employees?

Mr. Morris: I do not wholly accept that it is anomaly as such. It is true that Civil Service pensions are not

funded, but I do not think that that is an anomaly.

Civil Servants

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service by how many the Civil Service has increased or decreased since February 1974.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Although there were 38,000 more Civil Service staff in post on 1st April this year than on 1st March 1974, the nearest available dates, decisions taken by the Government to contain the size and cost of the Civil Service have caused a reduction in Civil Service numbers of nearly 12,000 since April 1976. This represents a saving of some £65 million, which has been achieved despite increasing workloads in some Departments caused by changes in taxation and unemployment levels.

Mr. Adley: The Minister has announced an increase of 38,000 civil servants. Will he accept my congratulations for ensuring that the Government have shielded their own employees from the hardship of unemployment which has hit the rest of the community? It will be noted that the Government's ability to increase the number of their employees is in line with their ability to increase unemployment, inflation, taxation, food prices and a whole host of other items. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what benefit the taxpayers can expect from an additional 38,000 civil servants?

Mr. Morris: I believe that the hon. Member prepared that supplementary question without listening to my answer. I indicated that since 1976 we have achieved a reduction of 12,000 civil servants and a financial saving of £65 million.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does that fact not only nail the lie that the Civil Service complement is constantly increasing but make clear to the House and the country that any increase in the number of civil servants follows actions taken by this House in passing legislation and calling upon Government Departments to carry out responsibilities that hon. Members want to be carried out? Those who criticise any increase in the number of civil servants should do something about it here instead of constantly asking for more Government support.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend is right. The size of the Civil Service is determined by the tasks imposed upon it by decisions of this House.

Closed Shop

Mr. Gow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards a closed shop in the Civil Service.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has made any progress in his discussions with Civil Service trade unions about the provision of closed shop agreements.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Discussions have taken place with both the industrial and non-industrial unions which have asked for union membership agreements. Proposals have been put on behalf of Ministers and there have been full and frank exchanges of views. The discussions are continuing, however, and I would not wish to prejudice their outcome by commenting on their content at this stage.

Mr. Gow: Will the Minister accept that the introduction of closed shop agreements in the Civil Service would be deeply offensive to the people of this country? Will he confirm from the Dispatch Box that the Government are opposed in principle to the imposition of a closed shop in the Civil Service?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the strength of feeling not only in this House but in the country generally on the question of union membership agreements. If we can continue the discussions with the unions, which are proceeding in a spirit of reasonableness and moderation, we can arrive at something.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister accept that, although many of us think that this is a matter that should be agreed by discussion and negotiation, there are, nevertheless, very strong feelings about this issue among the Civil Service trade unions? Will he pay close attention to the debates that took place at recent conferences and to the resolutions carried to ensure that the full views of the union members, who work so hard for better conditions, improved pay and better contracts in the Civil Service, are listened to by the Government?

Mr. Morris: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

WALES (REFERENDUM)

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress with arrangements to hold a referendum on the proposals to create an Assembly in Wales.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I have nothing to add to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Evans: Has my right hon. Friend considered the allocation of financial resources to those who will be campaigning for and against the Assembly, or are no funds to be made available? If that is the case, will he consider contacting the broadcasting media, the BBC and the IBA to ensure that there is fair play for both sides in the run-up campaign to the referendum?

Mr. Smith: The Government have already made clear, both in this House and in another place, that they have no intention of providing subventions to campaign organisations on either side of the referendum question. Indeed, legislation would be required for that purpose, and no amendments have been moved either in this House or in another place.
The other matter raised by my hon. Friend is one for the broadcasting authorities, which have an obligation to ensure impartiality in the coverage of the subject. I am sure that they will pay attention to the views of both sides of the argument that there should be fair representation.

Mr. Brittan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only necessary for the Government to avoid supporting outside bodies, but that it is essential for the Government not to spend taxpayers' money supporting one side in a highly controversial campaign? Will he assure the House that the Government do not intend to use their resources and taxpayers' money in support of the "Yes" campaign, and that they will accept that it is right that there should be legislation making clear that that cannot be done?

Mr. Smith: On the latter point, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is anticipating matters which may be engaging the attention of the House at a later stage. Perhaps it will be better for the House to listen to the arguments then. The Government have made it quite clear that they will campaign for a "Yes" vote in the referendum, because that is the policy of the Government and it is the policy in our manifesto on which we were elected. We have made it equally clear that we will not provide money to either side of the campaign.

REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Mr. Rooker: asked the Lord President of the Council if he has any further proposals for amending the rules governing the Register of Members' Interests.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I think that in the first instance the House would look to the Select Committee on Members' Interests for further proposals.

Mr. Rooker: That answer is unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Government have failed in their manifesto commitment to have a genuine Register of Members' Interests until he takes action to meet the case of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Until we have legislation on this matter, does he not agree that we shall not get local authorities to follow the lead that was supposed to be set by this House?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept that we have gone back on our manifesto commitment, because the register is still compiled. There was a recommendation from the Select Committee on the subject, which I do not regard as a sensible way to deal with the matter. However, that does not alter the fact that the register is still being compiled.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: But, as the Lord President has said that he does not regard this as a sensible way to deal with the matter, does he after this long interval propose to give the House time to consider the matter and the report of the Select Committee?

Mr. Foot: Of course there is a case for the House to consider the matter, but the House has had a number of other more pressing matters to discuss. The principle of the register has been accepted by the House and the register is sustained. I believe that that is the most important aspect of the matter. But at some stage no doubt there will be some further discussion in the House on the subject.

Mr. Skinner: In considering the time that would need to be allocated to this issue, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would take only a relatively short time, since almost every Member of the House, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), has agreed to the principle of the register? Therefore, the matter will be almost unanimous and could be disposed of in a few hours.

Mr. Foot: I do not think my hon. Friend is correct in that matter because the recommendation of the Committee on the subject raises quite different issues involving how the matter should be dealt with. I do not believe that it could be disposed of in the way my hon. Friend suggests. I do not think it right that the House should dispose of an issue involving censure of a Member in that way.

Mr. Anthony Grant: In view of all the other pressing commitments which the Government and the House have before them, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to waste not one second more time on such an utterly trivial matter?

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Badge Messengers (Uniform)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Lord President of the Council what consultations were held before a decision was taken that Badge Messengers of the House should wear new summer uniforms.

Mr. Foot: My office was consulted before the decision was taken.

Mr. Onslow: If the Lord President thinks that an Eton jacket is a suitable working uniform for a grown man, will he tell us when we may have the pleasure of seeing him turn up here in one himself? In the meantime, will he confirm that, if the Badge Messengers have strong views on the matter, it is open to them


to make representations to the effect that the uniform should be withdrawn?

Mr. Foot: The Badge Messengers can make any representations they wish. The matter was only proceeded with because the Serjeant at Arms had consultations with them and with Mr. Speaker. As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that the House will treat it with the derision it deserves.

MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. Skinner: asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding machinery of government.

Mr. Foot: I cannot recall receiving such formal representations but, like many Members, I am often made aware of people's views on how we should be governed.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the machinery of government would work much better if the House of Lords were abolished, if we got rid of the Honours List, if we removed a lot of the patronage from the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Lord President, and if we took away some of the power that is now being used by top civil servants? Has he taken account of the references made by Lord Armstrong on the miners' dispute in 1973–74 when Lord Armstrong seemingly advised the then Tory Prime Minister on the date of the General Election, and also of the recent remarks by Sir Antony Part at the Department of Industry? Bearing those matters in mind, does my right hon. Friend think that it is high time that they were removed from the political arena?

Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend in some of his earlier comments. I, too, have always been in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords, and I remain in favour of that proposition. There are some other aspects of the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend which are of first-class public importance, but I do not think they can be dealt with by question and answer now. I have also read the comments made by Lord Armstrong in the broadcast to which my hon. Friend referred. They were remarkable utter-

ances, but again I do not think they can be dealt with by question and answer now.

Sir John Rodgers: May I ask the Lord President whether his brothers agree with his point of view about the House of Lords?

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give more attention than the Brewers Society might give to the Band of Hope to the views of Lord Scarman and Lord Wilberforce that the right hon. Gentleman's Scotland Bill will not be workable in the absence of a constitutional court?

Mr. Foot: There are other Lords who took a very different view from those cited by my hon. Friend. The House, according to its normal procedure, will be taking account of the amendments passed in the Lords. Some of those amendments should be accepted by the House and it would be wise for us to accept them, but many of the others should be treated in the manner referred to in the earlier part of the question. I seem to recall that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may have taken his quotation from somewhere.

SCOTLAND BILL (AMENDMENTS)

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received concerning the amendments made to the Scotland Bill.

Mr. John Smith: Recent representations have been concerned mainly with the referendum, with transport and with the Tweed box.

Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on two occasions in this House we tried and failed to discuss the Government's proposals on the change in the constitution of the British Tourist Authority? Does he not agree that this matter concerns the whole of the United Kingdom, and will he give an assurance that the House will have an opportunity to discuss this important matter before the Bill leaves the Commons?

Mr. Smith: I, too, regretted the fact that we were not able to discuss this matter when we dealt with the Bill


earlier. However, the Government, in response to representations, tabled an amendment in another place to increase to nine the membership of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that that is a reasonable compromise between the competing interests in this instance. I hope that it will be endorsed by this House.

DEVOLUTION (REFERENDUMS)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now indicate approximately when the Government hope to hold the referenda on devolution in Wales and Scotland.

Mr. John Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give an assurance that, if the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill are on the statute book before the end of this Session, before the Session ends he will have announced the date of the referendums?

Mr. Smith: It is impossible for anyone on this side of the House to predict when we shall be in a position to make announcements or statements of any sort. The House still has a considerable way to go in dealing with these Bills.

Mrs. Bain: Is not one of the reasons why the Government are not prepared to announce the date of the referendums that they still have not made up their mind about the anomalies that persist as a result of the House passing the 40 per cent. minimum requirement?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Lady knows, we are considering that matter and seeking to make the best we can of the unfortunate decision arrived at by the House. On the subject of people making up their minds, I wish that the hon. Lady would explain to the people of Scotland why she continually votes against the Government on motions of confidence when only this Government can ensure that there is devolution.

Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend clarify his phrase "seeking to make the best…of the unfortunate decision"?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will get an opportunity to consider it further. What I intended to convey and what my words clearly conveyed, was that we are trying to make sense out of a decision which, on the face of it, causes some difficulty. My hon. Friend should not be too conspiratorial. There is quite an innocent explanation for the phrase, and he must not think that every word must be read as if it carried some Levantine intent.

SCOTLAND BILL (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Brittan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the intolerable situation that has arisen in relation to the handling of the Scotland Bill later this week. Tomorrow evening the House will be asked to pass a further timetable motion on the Scotland Bill, yet the arrangements that the Government wish to put to the House for dividing the time that will be made available if that motion is passed are still not available to the House.
What is worse, it is proposed, whether the timetable motion is passed or not, that on Thursday the House should consider Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. That means that if amendments to those amendments are not to be starred, they have to be put down by tomorrow—but the Lords Amendments are not available in the Vote Office today.
This attempt to bulldoze these measures through the House is unacceptable. Can anything be done to enable the House to have the necessary documentation in time for proper consideration and for amendments to be put down in time?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand the desire of the House that the motion should be on the Order Paper and that the House should have proper time to consider it. We shall be putting it down today.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) should be a little less impatient. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because if he looked up what happened on some previous Lords amendments to various


measures he would discover that we are acting in conformity with what has been the practice on previous occasions. That is why he should be a little more careful about using such words as "intolerable" and "unacceptable".
Of course we want to make the motion available for hon. Members to consider. Of course we shall be able to consider it properly tomorrow. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not cast aspersions on the way in which we shall be able to proceed with the matter on Thursday. We are seeking to deal with the whole question. We want to get the motion on the Order Paper today. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will spend the afternoon looking up what previous Goverments have done in such matters he will discover that we are acting in full accordance with the timetables that prevailed on previous occasions.

Mr. Brittan: When will the Lords amendments be available?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate that matter now. Mr. Rooker, on a point of order.

Sir David Renton: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) gave me notice of a point of order. I shall come back to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).

Later—

Sir David Renton: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), I wonder whether the Leader of the House could help us further in this matter. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot either sensibly prepare our own amendments to the Lords amendments or form a judgment on the timetable motion which the Government are to table until we know what are to be the Government's amendments to the Lords amendments. When will they be tabled?

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you refresh my memory? Am I correct in believing that

their Lordships are entirely responsible for delivering their decisions to this House? Is it not true that they have about 260 amendments, not 150 as has been reported, and is it possible that the delay in our receiving their amendments is not unintentional?

Mr. Speaker: It is clear that I cannot answer these questions on points of order. I cannot refresh the memory of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He had better look to another source.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (POLITICAL LITERATURE)

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order concerning the displaying of political literature and banners on the railings outside the House by an organisation of building industry employers attacking the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, if trade unions displayed such banners Conservative Members would be the first to complain.
As far as I am aware, it is not normally approved procedure for political literature to be displayed on the precincts of this place. I hope that you will have a word during the day with the authorities of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I shall certainly look into that matter.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed the political literature being displayed in Westminster Hall at the moment?

THEFT BILL [Lords]

Mr. Adley: I wish to raise a point of order on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and myself, though it may be that you, Mr. Speaker, will tell me that I should aim my question in another direction.
My hon. Friend and I both spoke on the Second Reading of the Theft Bill [Lords], which is a non-controversial measure in party terms, and we had both hoped to be selected for the Standing Committee. We were surprised and disappointed to find that, in spite of our speeches, neither of us had been selected.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that, in accardonce with Standing Order No. 40, the Bill stood committed to a Standing Committee for its Committee stage after Second Reading. Members of the Committee were nominated by the Committee of Selection on 7th June and a note to that effect apppeared in the Votes and Proceedings. The Standing Committee met on 27th June.
Before I call the Lord President to make his statement, may I tell the House that today, exceptionally, I took points of order before the statement? As a rule, I shag take points of order after statements, for the obvious convenience of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (CATERING SERVICES)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement. On Thursday 29th June I made a statement about the catering services of the House and I undertook to make another statement today.
Further discussions on the matter took place with union representatives on Friday last and I am glad to be able to report that some progress was made. I very much hope that further discussions will take place and that we shall be able to build on the progress made, so that we cart achieve a permanent and successful solution to the present difficulties, which will remove the sense of grievance that the catering staff feel over the lack of a pension scheme.
I am fully aware of, and regret, the great inconvenience caused by the disruption in catering services, but I hope that the House will be willing to accept what I have said and to await the outcome of further discussions. I shall report further as soon as I can.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who have been here for quite a long while were astounded to learn that members of the catering staff do not qualify for a pension and that a certain member of the staff whom we all know personally is retiring next year after 25 years' service and will not

get a single penny? That cannot be right. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that such a wrong is righted as quickly as possible?

Mr. Foot: It is in that spirit that I am approaching the matter. What I said to the House last week was that I thought that the first thing was to get a sensible discussion going in a proper way. That is what we did last Friday, and I think we are making some progress. Let us move along in that direction.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Negotiations are under way. I will call the two hon. Members who have risen and then move on to a Standing Order No. 9 application.

Mr. Gow: The Lord President has made a statement about the catering services of this House. Important though they are, would it not have been better if he had come to the House and made a statement that the Government would reorganise business for this week so that we could have a debate about Rhodesia, where many of the Queen's subjects—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is unreasonable, because the statement has to do with catering staff in the House of Commons.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that, while he and those around him are trying to resolve this matter, it is rather significant that the Opposition have not made any request or asked any questions about it? If by any chance there were not to be a Labour Government next time, could we not then have a situation in which the delay which has gone on for so long could go on even longer? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whatever decision is made is made very urgently in order that we can get the matter tied up before the so-called October election?

Mr. Foot: I do not know any more than my hon. Friend does about any October election. I do not regard an unfortunate outcome as being on the cards. I would not trust the Opposition, of course, but that is a different matter. I am hoping that we shall not have to trust them in this respect. I take into account what my hon. Friend said about


the desirability of proceeding with this matter at a good pace. That was one of the considerations that we mentioned when we discussed the matter on Friday.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Cant: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the British steel industry".
The gross mismanagement of the restructuring programme of the British Steel Corporation almost led last week to the first major national strike in the steel industry since 1926. In the case of the Bilston plant, it was conceded that the agreed procedures had not been followed, and the closure letter was withdrawn. Mr. Bill Sirs said, in effect, that it had all been a bit of a shambles, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it had been a bit of a mess.
More tragically, in the case of Shelton steelworks, which was closed by the BSC on 23rd June, it was conceded by Dr. Grieves, director of personnel and social policy, that the proper procedures had not been followed and that there had not been any consultation with the TUC steel committee. This raises legal issues which I propose to take up with the Lord Chancellor, but it has meant a loss of 1,600 jobs, whether this is due to callousness, administrative bungling or sheer incompetence.
There are now further rumours, relating to other important plants in this country to which this principle of closure by stealth is likely to apply. I need only mention Corby, Shotton, and even Port Talbot.
The crisis has also thrown up and left unresolved the role of the Secretary of State vis-à-vis the BSC and the TUC steel committee. I think that this is of great importance to the House.
Finally, at the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation annual conference, Sir Charles Villiers, chairman of the BSC, stated that it was now "gravely doubtful" whether this country would ever he a low-cost steel producer, throwing doubt on the basic strategy of the BSC.
These are the reasons for my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) did me the courtesy of notifying me this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the British steel industry".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. I listened carefully to what he said. But I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[27TH ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (STAFF DISPUTES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape]

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am very sorry that the Secretary of State for Social Services has had to go back into hospital again. We hope that he will this time make a full recovery and be back among us soon. When I saw the headline in The Guardian this morning reading "Ennals patient", I wondered whether "patient" was an adjective describing the Secretary of State. But we express our sorrow that he is not with us.
Two weeks ago, the Confederation of Health Service Employees had before its annual conference a resolution headed "Protection of patients". The resolution urged the Trades Union Congress to recognise that in the field of industrial disputes there was, as it put it,
a fundamental and intrinsic moral constraint
whereby hospital patients should not be caught up in, and suffer from the effects of, industrial action. The resolution called on the TUC to "recognise its responsibility" to formulate an explicit code of practice for the guidance of member unions in relation to
the moral facts of trade union activity which might adversely affect the wellbeing of hospital patients".
There was also an addendum which called for an end "for ever" to what it described as
the anachronisms of strikes and lock-outs",
and it asked that
arbitration and conciliation be used as mature forms of political development".
The mover of the resolution was Mr. Cathal Breslin, of the Winwick branch. He was reported in the Nursing Mirror as saying that if the conference rejected his resolution it meant that

whatever the consequences to patients, the principle of total strike action is not repugnant to the conference
He went on:
We have an obligation to prevent hospital patients from suffering hardships as a result of industrial action".
He was supported in his motion by Mr. David Edwards of London St. Thomas's branch. He said:
This motion makes sound common sense. We have got to find ways and means of hitting hard at the people we are fighting—the system, the administrators—not the sick and dying patients caught in the middle.
The resolution and the addendum were fiercely opposed, and, as was reported in the Press, they were overwhelmingly rejected by the COHSE conference. In a hurriedly called Press conference after the debate, an embarrassed Mr. Albert Spanswick, the general secretary of COHSE, explained that the rejection was on technical grounds, but it is worth examining what those technical grounds were. I quote from The Guardian of 23rd June:
He said it would have been in direct conflict with the union's Rule 14, which governs the withdrawal of labour and gives the national executive the absolute right to call industrial action as and when it deems necessary.
One is forced to the conclusion that to the majority of COHSE delegates union rules loom larger than patient care. I have cited this recent episode because it illustrates dramatically what this debate is about—the threat to patients from disputes in the National Health Service.
We have decided to devote one of out precious half Supply Days to the subject for three reasons. The first is that there is mounting concern, right across the political spectrum, at the spreading rash of strikes, go-slows and work-to-rules in the hospital service.
When two such different political columnists as George Gale of the Daily Express and Hugo Young of The Sunday Times—who are poles apart politically—combine to condemn trade union attitudes and union morality the House should take notice. In his article in The Sunday Times on 25th June, Hugo Young wrote, referring to the hospital service:
Here we see electricians and other workers—even, sometimes, nurses—ready to with draw all or part of their labour, whatever the damage this does to an already declining


service and whatever the misery it inflicts on sick people. By any objective test, this is an act of impressive moral iniquity. It is the coarse exercise of power for selfish ends, injuring not some profiteering ogre of an employer but solely and exclusively defenceless patients.
Our second reason for choosing this subject for debate is to give the Government an opportunity to explain what they are doing about the situation. Earlier this year stories began to appear in the medical Press saying that the Secretary of State was proposing, as part of the 30th anniversary celebrations, according to Pulse
an ambitious declaration from all who work in the health service to pull together".
In an outspoken speech the Secretary of State said that he was "cheesed off" with those who disrupt services for selfish ends. He said that he wanted to crown his celebrations with a ringing declaration by all NHS staff that they would turn over a new leaf and put patients first.
We now know that the Secretary of State will be disappointed in this. Under the headline
A cloud over NHS anniversary
in The Guardian on Saturday, we were told not only that his declaration; if it comes at all, will say little or nothing about disputes in the NHS, but that the whole document is so complacent that the doctors have refused to sign it. We need to know from the Government what is going on in the attempt to outlaw strikes.
Our third reason for choosing this subject is more general. These disputes are self-inflicted wounds on an NHS which is already struggling because of constraints on public spending. Naturally, any discussion will involve criticism of trade union attitudes and actions and there is a temptation to remain silent.
I draw comfort from Hugo Young. In the same article that I quoted earlier he said:
Yet throughout these latest assaults on the hospital service, how many politicians have straightforwardly attacked the hospital workers or even challenged the ethics of their behaviour? The Tories, crippled by fears of being misunderstood, have been muted. From Labour there has been abject silence…What this great problem needs is ventilation, by people who are not mesmerised by either fear or complacent indifference. Since 1974, unions have not only got more power. They have succeeded in suppressing honest outrage about how they sometimes use it.

I have no doubt that Mr. Young is a member of the National Union of Journalists and a sympathiser of the Labour Party. We should take note of what he says.
We on this side do not run away from this issue. I have discussed the issues on many occasions, generally and specifically, with union leaders in the NHS, nationally and locally. I know that in most of the NHS hospitals industrial disruption is rare. In many hospitals it never happens. I say that without equivocation. I also know that many of the disputes are not necessarily of the unions' own making. I know that sometimes the unions have right on their side and that the NHS management is sometimes obtuse and insensitive and sometimes downright obstructive. But I also know that in the majority of cases of disruption there is no need whatever for action that harms patients.
For those three reasons—public anxiety, to give the Government the opportunity to spell out their case and our duty to voice the criticisms—this debate is right and timely. I hope that we can discuss the issues rationally and coolly, despite the deep indignation that is felt by many people at what has been going on.
In the debate on 20th April I referred to the growth of industrial disruption. I was challenged by Labour Members to produce chapter and verse. I did not wish to waste the time of the House and I do not really wish to take up time today. But perhaps it is necessary to remind the House about what has been going on.
We should remember the appalling scenes outside the mental hospitals in the Mid-Surrey district last year when pickets from the Transport and General Workers' Union stopped food, fuel and drugs reaching some of the most deprived and disadvantaged people in our society—elderly, frail and psychogeriatric patients.
Only recently there was the clocking-on dispute at the West London hospital, Hammersmith. Mercifully, that dispute was settled last week, but it led to a sharp cut-back in admissions and therefore lengthened the waiting list. There has been the threatened national strike by electricians and plumbers which—as I said at the time and the Secretary of


State agreed—would have led to the wholesale evacuation of major hospitals which would have been left without light, heat and power and would have threatened life because of the switching off of intensive care units, special baby care equipment and dialysis equipment. The country heaved a sigh of relief when that dispute de-escalated into nothing more than a work-to rule. But that was bad enough.
The Guardian reported:—
Virtually every health region in the country has been affected by the industrial action ‖ Yesterday concern was growing at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children—
of which ironically, the chairman of the governors is the Prime Minister's own wife—
where all open heart surgery has stopped.
What of the misery of a small child prepared for a major operation who is told at the last moment that it cannot take place because of industrial action?

Mrs. Jill Knight: And what of the parents?

Mr. Jenkin: The parents would suffer, too.
We should remember the telephonists strike which was condemned by both sides of the House because the telephonists were pulling out the plugs and purporting to be able to know which cases were urgent and which were not. There has also been the open warfare at Dulwich hospital because of personality conflicts, culminating in the suspension of all operations because the authorities rightly believed that in that atmosphere it was not safe to go ahead with operations.
There was also the lightning walk-out of porters at the Westminster hospital because one of their number was taken ill and died after admission to the casualty ward. Those disputes achieved national headlines. But there are dozens of others which have escaped wide national coverage.
There have been disputes leading to the threatened withdrawal of services. In April 1976 there was a dispute about overtime payments at St. Stephen's hospital, West Brompton and at St. Mary Abbotts. That dispute led to a suspension of admissions and a lengthening of waiting lists. In July 1976 at the Charing

Cross hospital there was a dispute over bonus payments.
If anyone believes that those who lead these disputes are anxious to avoid threats to patients it is instructive to see what the porters' spokesman said on that occasion. He claimed that the hospital
had been forced to refuse admissions because of their action
while an administrator claimed that the situation was not so serious. That dispute was aimed directly at patients. The patients were not just the unfortunate victims of circumstance. There was a 24-hour strike at the Basingstoke hospital in July 1976. The hospital was reduced to what was described in the Press as
a shambles of bitterness and discontent by the activities of left wing shop stewards".
In October 1976 there was a demarcation dispute at a North London hospital because, in the absence of porters, the nurses lifted the patients on to the operating table. The result was a lightning strike for the rest of the day and a suspension of operations.
In April 1977 there was a strike over duties at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children in Hackney and at the Great Ormond Street hospital. The administrator at the Queen Elizabeth hospital said:
The place is in absolute chaos, and if we have a real emergency there could be trouble.
In May last year, there was a dispute over manning at the Seacroft hospital, Leeds, which led directly to the cancellation of operations for 50 children.
I could cite many, many more examples, but perhaps I need only draw attention to what was said in a Written Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who may catch the eye of the Chair later. My hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State
if he will list the hospitals in England and Wales at which the admission of patients is currently being limited by actual or threatened industrial action on the part of nursing and ancillary staff."—[Official Report, 27th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 538.]
I shall not read the whole Answer, but the Minister knows that he had to list no fewer than 36 hospitals at which admissions were being limited by the action of staff.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Should I be lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair, I shall be able to tell the House


that that is a far from complete answer. I have information in my possession coming from the Minister himself which shows that there are a great many more hospitals where this is happening.

Mr. Jenkin: That underlines my point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
What all this means in terms of human misery prolonged absolutely defies description. Health Service staff, I know, are individually deeply worried about what is going on, and many will have agreed in their hearts with a recent leading article in the Nursing Mirror, written in the wake of the mid-Surrey blockade to which I have already referred. I shall quote a passage from it:
‖ Industrial action which rebounds on patients and affects the sick, the injured, the elderly and the mentally ill ‖ is surely unacceptble to anyone whose chosen career is caring for the sick, in whatever capacity.
The leading article then makes a point which I shall take up:
…there can be no nurse who would willingly use patients as hostages in order to achieve her own ends. Yet this is what it amounts to when industrial action makes patients suffer.
I am sure that that is right. There is not an electrician in the country who would march into an intensive care unit and pull out the plug on the life support system and let the patient die. Of course there is not. There is not a plumber in the country who would force art incontinent patient to lie for hours in his own urine for lack of washing facilities in the ward. There is not a cook in the country who would set out to starve children in order to enforce some private personal grievance.
But one then has to ask the question. The right hon. Gentleman is himself a member of NUPE and, presumably, has the ear of the unions. Why is it that, when men and women threaten to do these things collectively, somehow they can justify what they do? What it is about trade union collective bargaining which seems to blunt individual consciences?
There was another revealing moment at the COHSE conference a week before last. I think that the whole House knows that it is the policy of NALGO, of NUPE and of COHSE to freeze out from negotiating bodies unions which are not

affiliated to the TUC. They are anxious to exclude the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Institute of Health Service Administrators, the British Association of Occupational Therapists and many others from local committees, and eventually from Whitley itself.
The Nursing Mirror carried a report last week of one of the debates at the COHSE conference on a resolution calling on members to exclude "the enemy" from management consultations. That resolution was carried with resounding support. Perhaps I should explain that the enemy" there referred to were, believe it or not, the nurses, the midwives and the therapists who belong to associations not affiliated to the TUC.
One then looks at the reasons given, and this really says it all. I quote from the report in the Nursing Mirror:
One delegate complained that the Royal College of Nursing had tried to break up industrial action he had recently been involved in. He claimed that non-TUC-affiliated unions did not care about the fight to improve pay and conditions.
The unspoken word there is that they cared about patients. That says it all. It is a very revealing statement. It is not patients who matter to these people; it is pay and conditions of staff.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally bad that the Socialist chairman of the Camden and Islington health authority should give her support to failure of consultation and walk out of a meeting which the local accredited representatives of the Royal College of Nursing wanted to attend?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. If people want to negotiate these things, let them negotiate, but let them not try to coerce unions and administrators by the use of force. This business of walking out and so on is quite absurd especially when, in the Camden and Islington area health authority, the majority of nurses are in the Roy al College of Nursing and only a minority are in the TUC-affiliated unions.
If that is the sickness—it is a sickness, and there is no burking the issue—what is the cure? The first answer must be better management. Of that there can be no doubt. The report of the Dulwich


inquiry, which I have read in full, revealed many weaknesses, and they must be put right. But, equally, there must be a recognition of the ultimate responsibility of doctors and nurses—clinical staff—for their patients.
In its comments on the Dulwich dispute, The Times said:
But hospitals cannot be run safely and efficiently unless clear-cut responsibility in clinical matters lies with those who are qualified to take clinical decisions.
One of the things that we look for from the Minister today is an absolutely unqualified affirmation of that proposition. Nothing has done more damage than that unqualified people should presume to decide which are emergencies and who are the patients who need immediate treatment.
Secondly, with better management must go better leadership. One of the problems of the Health Service is that, as management gets more difficult, so the requirements of leadership become more important, and often one hears from people at all levels in hospitals of the lack of effective leadership on the ground.
Thirdly, we need greater personal respect for all those involved. It is an old saying that if you treat people like dirt they will behave like dirt. I have no doubt that in some cases one can see the cause of disputes in that. Sometimes, only the simplest things are necessary. I read in the evidence of the King's Fund to the Royal Commission that there was a dispute in one hospital about manning of rotas for an accident and emergency unit, and the simple strategem of writing up the names of each team, whether consultants, nurses, secretaries, administrators or porters—from Mr. A down to Mr. W —immediately removed the problem. Each saw himself or herself as a member of the team and there was no question of people fighting for positions. There must, as I say, be personal respect, and sometimes no more than a simple thing of that kind is necessary.
Certainly, we need better consultation procedures. Many disputes are caused because the consultation procedures are unbelievably slow and bureaucratic and people's patience runs out.
I see talk in the medical Press of a patients' safety committee as a sort of ultimate longstop so that there could

be groups in each hospital able to say, when a dispute came along, which patients must not be allowed to suffer and be able to identify them. Perhaps that could be looked at.
Certainly, reform of the staff side of the Whitley machinery should be examined. The McCarthy report is now some months old. We have had an interim report, but we should like the Minister of State to tell us now what is happening about implementation of the McCarthy recommendations.
But even with all that—and it is a big enough recipe—I still say that if we are to avoid these damaging disputes—

Mr. William Molloy: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has been bubbling away, and I shall give way to him now.

Mr. Molloy: I am much obliged. I can support much of what the right hon Gentleman has said, but may we have an understanding with him that, if we implement all that he is calling for, he will not then turn tail and say that it all involves extra public expenditure and when his boss comes along, he will have to follow her and not agree?

Mr. Jenkin: There is nothing here which calls for a penny extra of public expenditure. We are talking about better procedures, swifter management and so on. On the contrary—if we can remove some of the burden of bureaucracy, many of these improvements could be achieved with reduced public expenditure.
But, with all that I am urging. we still need a pretty fundamental change of attitudes on the part of some people who are working in the National Health Service. I have quoted before, and I shall quote again because I think it important, the statement of Alan Fisher, the general secretary of NUPE, when he gave an interview to the Health and Social Services Journal a year or two ago. He was asked:
How far do you take account of patients?
He replied:
We all have interest in the welfare of the patients, but they are not our predominant interest. Our job is to safeguard the terms and conditions of our members".
We in this House are entitled to say that those who take employment in the


National Health Service should be prepared to say that they regard the interests of patients as paramount.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The right hon. Member has made that statement, but will he extend that to the consultants? I take everything that he has said up to now, but he has not actually mentioned the fact that the consultants were in this position about a year or so ago.

Mr. Jenkin: It was, in fact, nearly three years ago. I have condemned that on many occasions. But I am bound to tell the hon. Gentleman that if he goes around the country—as I know he does—and talks to people, he will find that it is not strikes by consultants that people are worried about now; it is what I have been talking about. I spoke to an audience of junior doctors in the Grand Committee Room and told them to their faces that they had no right whatever to withdraw their labour to the detriment of patients. If it is necessary, I reaffirm that today.
I am looking for a recognition by all those in the Health Service that the patients must come first. I welcome the efforts which the Secretary of State has made to get a joint declaration. As a matter of historical accuracy, I think that it was the secretary of the British Medical Association, Dr. Elston Grey-Turner, who made the first move on this and approached the TUC. But one has to say —and I say it regretfully in the absence of the Secretary of State—that the Secretary of State jolly nearly fouled it up right at the beginning by linking this idea of commitment to patients with his thirtieth anniversary celebrations. I am bound to say that at the time I regarded that—and I regard it today—as a very foolish gimmick, and it all but torpedoed an important initiative.
I understand, however, that the initiative has survived and that the Under-Secretary is chairing a committee. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us something about that.
I would say very firmly to the TUC that it must be ready to meet other unions and associations half-way. But I am not hopeful that these words will be heeded. Last Thursday the TUC held its own thirtieth anniversary celebration. In the words of The Times they

did nothing to help the controversial statement of intent on industrial harmony in the service".
What was said—again I quote from The Times of 30th June 1978—was this:
There was applause for Mr. Reginald Bird, of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, when he said he found it deplorable that Mr. Ennals had invited the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and representatives of other medical and nursing royal colleges to informal discussions about labour relations on exactly the same basis as discussions with the TUC.
One is bound to ask Mr. Bird "Why on earth is that deplorable?" One asks him and those who think like him whether they have no sense of common purpose at all in joining with the doctors, nurses, midwives and others in what is, after all, one of the noblest of human aims—the care and healing of the sick.
The unions, I am sure, are among those who would subscribe to the view spelled out in the recent release from the Labour Party from Transport House, which says that the NHS is
the cornerstone of the caring society which looks after all its citizens.
It goes on to say:
The NHS is still the envy of most of the world.
The NHS will swiftly forfeit any claim that it may ever have had of being the envy of the world, unless we all, politicians and plumbers, cooks and consultants, recognise that in moving that COHSE resolution two weeks ago, Mr. Cathal Breslin was right and that there is, indeed
a fundamental and instrinsic moral constraint whereby patients should not suffer from the effects of industrial action.
What we need today is a Geneva Convention by all who work in the NHS—that, come what may, patients will always be their first concern. In a service caring for the sick, the injured, the old, the crippled and the dying, is that really too much to ask?

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) has made a sensational case, and at times he piled sensation upon sensation. The House knew that it was in for a union-bashing afternoon when the subject for debate was put forward by the Opposition. We knew we would get a lot of selective


stories—quite true stories of course, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as every other hon. Member, a sensational story makes news, but a good story does not.
What the right hon. Gentleman has done is to select a wide number of things which perhaps might be deplored by many people, to give a highly unbalanced and distorted account of what happens concerning workers within the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has been less than fair to COHSE's annual conference. In spite of the fact that he quoted the Press conference afterwards as a kind of apologia, he knows, as well as everybody else who has studied the effects of that conference, that there was nothing in the principles of the proposal that was objected to by the leadership on the platform. A remission was asked for, and had it been remitted it would have emerged in the kind of form which could well have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman. But as a conference procedure, that never happened.

Mr. Patrick Jenldn: But the resolution was not remitted. It was thrown out, as The Guardian said, by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Pavitt: The reason why it was thrown out was that the mover refused to remit it, and that is the normal procedure at every conference, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He has been less than fair to Alan Fisher of my own union. I have no interest to declare, because, although I am a member of NUPE, I am not a sponsored Member. However, I am very proud to be a member of that union, in spite of the fact that from time to time, like all other organisations, things happen within it and in individual areas of which I, as a member, would not necessarily approve.
But I would say to the House that no other union has done more to raise the morale of the workers inside the National Health Service than the National Union of Public Employees. Therefore, when one hears attacks mounted upon specific instances such as those made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, it is less than fair.
The right hon. Gentleman has taken on the whole role of the public prosecutor, and he has mounted a prosecution

case. If he were to take some kind of balance, some kind of perspective, and if he were sitting in a different position, other than that of being in the Opposition, and if he should ever find himself in the position of being a Minister in the DHSS, he would find a whole number of good reasons why that kind of case does no good to the public at large, does no good to the Health Service, and no good to the feeling in his final words, with which I agree so much, that he is trying to engender a feeling of being part of and being prepared to work for the MIS and being prepared to accept the kind of provisions the NHS delivers.
The language the right hon. Gentleman used was emotive. All the things which he quoted—for example "assaults on the hospital service"— build up an atmosphere of emotion which, in my view, does no credit to this House and does no credit to those people seeking to deal with the real difficulties which we accept exist within the Health Service and which we are seeking to put right.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) immediately raised the point that, of course, we are talking about the lowest paid and the lower-paid workers. We are not talking now about the clinical staff and we are not talking about the hospital doctors. The NHS is the only organisation in this country which is under constant and fervent attack because it is imperfect. We look at its imperfections and we can tell what is wrong with it. The fact that there are about 2½ million successful operations is never recorded, but if there is one which goes wrong, immediately one gets headlines in the Press.
What has happened in this debate today is that disputes have been taken out of all perspective, because the NHS is the largest employer of labour in this country. The total figure of manpower and womanpower is nearly 1 million people. That means, in ordinary terms, that we are talking of disputes affecting 300 million working days. How many days have we lost through industrial disputes affecting the patients? In 1974 the figure was 17,811. In 1975, it was 13,225, and in 1976 it was 14,931—out of 300 million working days. There is no industry, either nationalised or private, which can show that kind of record of work service.
It is because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, of the fact that the vast majority of people working in the service are devoted and give of their time and their energy that we ought to be praising them, rather than sorting out the few bad eggs in the basket and not praising the good ones.
When considering the effect on patients of any disputes, NALGO's record is typical. NALGO has 90,000 members in the NHS and in the last two years has had only nine official stoppages. Three were overtime bans, five resulted in non-co-operation and one related to non-participation. That is for a staff of 90,000 in all grades. There is less industrial unrest, non-co-operation and overtime banning and fewer strikes in the NHS than in any industry, nationalised or otherwise.
We must recognise the reality, that nearly 1 million people give devoted service year in and year out on less pay than they would get outside the hospital gates. The ancillary worker whom the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford attacked earned in April 1977 an average of £59 a week. Doing the same job in a nationalised industry he would get £76 and in private industry he would get £74.
What adds to the feeling of wage injustice is the fact that the last two decades of freezes, pauses and pay policies have meant not only that the hospital worker gets lower pay at the time but, because of his pension arrangements, at the end of his time his pension is also that much short. Naturally, that arouses the kind of frustration which in outside industry can be remedied by industrial disputes and in other ways. In the NHS, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the majority of cases the feeling is that other action should be taken.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That may have been true some while ago, but nearly two years ago, on 29th September 1976, in Blackpool, the Secretary of State said:
We have seen the largest increase in Health Service expenditure ever experienced during the days of this Labour Government. Of course I have to say that those who benefited most—and rightly so—were staff.
It is not as if they have been neglected.

Mr. Molloy: It is still not enough.

Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. Before that, especially in the period 1970–74, they had appallingly low wages. In 1975, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was Secretary of State, another £800 million was put into the NHS, which allowed us to right many of the anomalies from which the workers previously suffered.
The greatest threat to patients in recent disputes has been the action not of ancillary workers but of doctors. The greatest threat was the junior hospital doctors' efforts; they added 100,000 to the waiting list, which we are still trying to clear. But the right hon. Gentleman never likes to talk about what the doctors do.
There is no way in which a layman can judge the threat to a patient when a consultant decides to work to rule, because only the consultant knows what rule he is working to. Whether one is waiting for a hip operation or something else, if a doctor is politically minded and, as has happened recently, wishes to make political capital out of a bash at the NHS, he can use the problem of a long waiting list, since it is mainly the consultant who controls the waiting list.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member will know of my interest in the subject of hip operations, on which he has just touched. Will he categorically state whether he is blaming the doctors for the fact that the waiting time for hip operation is steadily lengthening?

Mr. Pavitt: I blame it on two counts—the first is that they are refusing to have a common waiting list between private and general practice, which the Department has been trying to negotiate with them for 12 months; the second is a specific case. We know that probably nothing attracts attention so much as a specific case. In one area—I will not name it, but the whole House will know of it—public meetings have been held concentrating on hip operations. Had there been more determination and better co-operation between senior registrars and the consultants, the waiting list would have been much better in that area.
There have been advances in some aspects of pay—particularly for the nurses when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was Secretary of


State in 1974. One area where no threat to patients occurs is through industrial action by nurses. Yet when my right hon. Friend is considering the pay structures within the NHS he should remember that, in spite of the 10 per cent. increase for nurses which has just been received, a staff nurse of 28 or 30, who has trained for three years and spent five years on the wards, now gets £3,255—less than many girls working in offices with hardly any training.
COHSE is such a good organisation because its members are devoted to the mentally sick and mentally handicapped and do the kind of job of which many of us would be scared. A staff nurse in that organisation on the top grade in a mental hospital gets £3,424. A male staff nurse has to cope with dangerous situations, with locked wards and with instances in which, unless he is well experienced, a mild outbreak by one patient can in a moment inflame a whole ward.
It would be much better if the Opposition devoted some of their Supply Days to talking about that kind of thing, about the kind of services that our people in the hospitals give—instead of concentrating on industrial action taken, perhaps, to keep open a casualty department which the calculating machines have decided is no longer an economical proposition because it is too small. When workers take that sort of action, many of us feel that there is something to be said for sit-ins, even if that means some kind of industrial action. It is on behalf of would-be patients.
The present situation is the fault of successive Governments. Each Government—I blame this Government as much as their predecessors—disobey the cardinal rule of medicine and treat the immediate symptom without trying to diagnose the basic problem.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said about McCarthy. What is needed and has been needed for some time is a basic restructuring of the whole organisation, so that frustration does not build up and explode in a way which may harm patients.
It put the blame fairly and firmly for the present bad procedures on the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He cannot escape respon-

sibility for the appalling reorganisation which he forced through against the wishes of this side of the House and which has only exacerbated work relations throughout the hospital service. In this week's British Medical Journal there are two excellent articles, by Sir Francis Avery Jones and Professor Rudolf Klein, which show beyond peradventure that the reorganisation was a mistake because it put too big a distance between administrators and NHS doctors and ancillary workers and broke up the partnership between those working in the hospitals and those running the service.
The Opposition complain about bureaucratic growth, about the fact that there are now too many tiers and about the amount we spend on administration, yet they never admit that their Government forced through the reorganisation over an unwilling Opposition who opposed it at all stages.
I repeat what the right hon. Gentleman said about McCarthy. In its 1976 report, the committee said:
Many small disputes in the National Health Service have been exaggerated because there is no regional disputes procedure: therefore everything is taken to Departmental level and takes a very long time.
I endorse that.
But it is even worse than that. It is not just that there is no procedure at regional level. There is none at area level either. Many of the instances given by the right hon. Gentleman are isolated cases which stick at district level and for which we have no machinery to get unstuck. As a result, negotiations cannot succeed and the result is the kind of thing that we all deplore, when a small group of people feel that they have no option but to proceed in a way which might harm the patients they normally serve so well.
The unions have now agreed with my right hon. Friend on new procedures and a document has been prepared. I plead with my Front Bench not to let the consultative processes take too long. I think that at the present time the chairmen of regional health authorities are looking at what has been proposed, and that those on the other side of the Whitley Council are also looking at it. The document must be made operative before the House rises. If things go on for longer than that it will be far too late.


There is a need for urgency, and the sooner the matter is concluded the better.
It is time that society—and that includes the Government. Parliament and ourselves—faced the fact that in this debate we are discussing ordinary rights of workers. Rights available to workers in every other industry are far higher than those available to those who work in the hospital service.
In that recognition we have to accept responsibility. We have to agree not to find scapegoats for what goes on but try to put the darned thing right. We have had 30 years in which to do it but successive Governments have failed. Teachers cannot strike without affecting children. Hospital doctors and others cannot exercise muscle in a dispute without hurting innocent people—in this case, as the right hon. Gentleman said, patients who are often crying out for the alleviation of pain and distress.
I submit to the House that we must take responsibility for creating a framework within which justice can be done without the normal action of industrial disputes. We must realise that unless there are alternative methods there is the likelihood of industrial disputes occurring. If there are inordinate delays in seeking to resolve real grievances frustrations build up and the situation becomes explosive. When that happens it becomes extremely difficult for us to be able to have the kind of service of which we are all proud.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: What on odd speech that was. Here and there it contained some quite sensible bits, but here and there some crazy ones. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) of union bashing—the sort of instant reaction of any Socialist who knows that he is on to a thrashing at the polls. And what a silly attitude to take, to put all the blame on the doctors, as if they genuinely wish to see patients suffer, and as if they alone were guilty in any way of causing suffering to patients. What a partial little speech. What a pity because the hon. Gentleman knows something about the subject and he ought to do better.
I go with the hon. Gentleman in one respect: I accept that blame can be put on successive Governments of all parties, but I think that the hon. Gentleman could have placed a good deal more blame on his own Government without stretching credibility too far.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why in the Good. Hope hospital at Sutton Coldfield only three hip operations were done in 12 months?

Mr. Onslow: There are always particular cases that can be distorted to provide evidence for exaggerated points. When I have finshed speaking the hon. Gentleman will probably accuse me of using similar evidence for the same purpose, but I do not see any point in trading insults with him, because I want to talk about one or two things which concern me and which I believe are relevant to this debate. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) would like to suck his teeth somewhere else, it will cause me no offence because this is a serious matter and I hope that it can he taken seriously.

Mr. Molloy: Get on with it.

Mr. Onslow: I shall get on with it, because Brookwood hospital in my constituency has attracted some national attention because of disputes which have arisen there and attained a good deal of prominence lately.
I admit—and everybody who studies this problem must concede—that there is a long history of friction at that hospital. It goes back at least four years, and I have no intention of wearying the House by rehearsing the whole of it, but there are things about the present situation which I believe could properly be drawn to the attention of the House.
The House probably knows the events concerning the so-called takeover by a workers' council and I hope has welcomed, as I do, the fact that the matter has now been resolved to the point that there is to be a full inquiry into what has gone on and what has been wrong. I do not wish to pre-empt that inquiry or to do anything to make its task more difficult. I think, however, that it is right to express some reservations about the way in which things may go unless those concerned are very careful.
I do not know how things will go, because so far we have got no further than that the committee of inquiry is meeting today to settle its own terms of reference, but if we accept—and I hope that all concerned will accept—that relations are so bad that workers feel obliged to resort to a particular action, and that management on its side feels entitled to react, the prime public interest in the matter—and it is this with which we should be concerned—is to find out what has gone wrong and try to put it right.
In any dispute there may be many reasons why people have fallen out with one another. It may simply be a personality clash in conditions of stress. That is something that we need not regard as being in any way political or unusual. The reason may turn out to be nothing worse than that. On the other hand, there may be administrative failures. There may be failures of communication on both sides, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that those can be a cause of dispute. If those are the reasons, I hope that this inquiry will bring them out.
If reorganisation is part of the reason why these things have happened I shall be delighted if that, too, is brought out, because there is a good deal of force in the argument that reorganisation has lengthened the chain of decision to a point where people who used to be able to take decisions are now criticised not for their faults but simply because the system prevents them from taking decisions. That is something that we should not be afraid to admit and discuss, and I am not afraid to admit or discuss it.
Equally, if there is—and there may be—a campaign on the part of one union or another—and COHSE is one union in dispute here—against the members of another professional body, the Royal College of Nursing, and if that is part and parcel of the dispute, that, too, had better be brought out. I am sure the Minister knows that at least one former employee at this hospital, a Royal College of Nursing member, has just successfully brought proceedings before an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal. If there is such friction between COHSE and the RCN, and it seems, from reports in the Press yesterday, that that may be a general and not a particular develop-

ment, that is something else which has to be brought out in the public interest, and brought out impartially.
It may be—and I suppose that this again may be a reflection of inadequate management on somebody's part—that there is a simple conflict of objectives in a mental hospital such as Brookwood. There is some evidence to show that that may be so in the comments of the area health authority on the local community health council's report for 1976–77. This drew attention to the difficulty in getting full use of the rehabilitation unit in this hospital.
The area health authority commented:
Nursing unions are reluctant to divert resources from the sick towards rehabilitation. Regretfully the current staffing situation is such that it is possible only to deal with the rehabilitation of patients from Brookwood Hospital, and it would be unrealistic to attempt to deal also with patients from other units.
If there is a conflict there—and there seems to be one—it is probable that the responsibility for that lies higher than health authority level, and if that is so, that fact needs to be identified.
If the root cause of all the unrest in the Health Service is basically a total inadequacy of Government funding, that again is something that should be brought out into the open here and now.
My point in going through that list of possible causes of the dispute is to question whether an internal domestic inquiry within the orbit of the area health authority will be adequate to protect and define the public interest. I do not believe that this is the only hospital where this sort of thing has happened, and it is important that when there is a dispute of this kind—just as we had a different cause for inquiry at South Ockendon and elsewhere—we should get at the root of the matter. There should be no hesitation in and no inhibitions about establishing the reasons why things go wrong.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that, and that he will not be reluctant to see that the truth is brought out and that no accusations of union bashing, doctor bashing or any such thing are made. I hope that he will have the responsibility to agree with me there, because these matters are too serious to be brushed off with electioneering gibes of the kind he gave us.
In his admirable speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford referred to my recent Written Question about the number of hospitals
at which the admission of patients is currently being limited by actual or threatened industrial action on the part of (a) nursing and (b) ancillary staff."—[Official Report, 27th June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 537.]
I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech to suggest that the Minister's answer had been less than complete and accurate. I can give one instance, again very close at hand, which I hope will show that I am not making a light or unfounded criticism.
I refer to Botleys Park hospital, which was not in the list in the Minister's reply and which was the subject of a letter to me from the right hon. Gentleman on 25th April. He said:
As you know, the admission of patients to Botleys Park Hospital for long-term care has been suspended because of industrial action taken by nursing staff, in support of their demands for improved nurse:patient ratios at the hospital.
There has been no change at the hospital since then. I confirmed that by telephone this morning.
I completely fail to understand why that hospital was not included in the list. If the criteria were so drawn as to exclude it, I am fairly sure that a number of other hospitals were similarly omitted. I wish to know more about that, because when we are discussing the effect of industrial action on patients in the National Health Service I should like to put in a word for the people who do not even get into hospital. That hospital is a case in point.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Would it be of assistance to my hon. Friend if I later gave him what is quite a long list of hospitals where admissions are at present being refused? The Westminster hospital has been doing it for about one week a month. That hospital does not appear in my hon. Friend's list. Borocourt hospital near Henley is doing it. One of the Bristol hospitals is doing it. I can give my hon. Friend a long list of hospitals which do not appear on his own list.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he gives me no comfort. However, he underlines the point, and I

want to underline it further by telling the Minister and the House what is the situation at Botleys Park hospital. It is a hospital for mentally handicapped people, who are perhaps the least able to raise their voice in the House.
On that hospital's waiting list at present there are 23 urgent cases and 60 less urgent. Of the 23 urgent cases, there are six male adults, 12 female adults and five children. The House might like to hear a little about one of those children. She is classified by her consultant as being in a situation of serious risk to herself and to her mother. She is a severely disturbed girl of 13½, needing special attention. A special request was made to the trade union action committee to admit her, but as she will create extra work for the already hard-pressed nursing staff the committee was unable to accede to this request.
Let that be noted by the House as a situation faced not only by patients but by those who should be patients. I have given the example of a girl of 13½. There are four others like her at that one hospital. There are 18 adults in a similar position and 60 less urgent cases. Who draws the line between urgency and non-urgency?
That is the position we confront on the thirtieth anniversary of the NHS. When I press the Minister on the subject, as I have done for some time, in the end he returns to this defence, as he did in a letter:
I would, of course, have preferred to see a higher level of forecast expenditure‖ but‖ recognition must be given to the overriding importance of other national priorities within the Government's economic strategy.
All right, But as a defence that does not seem to me to be particularly watertight, even if the hon. Member for Ealing, North and his hon. Friends say "That means that you are arguing in favour of increased Government expenditure." We are not necessarily doing anything of the kind. What we are doing is to attack the Government for failing to understand that part of the answer may be better deployment of the resources that the NHS already has.
The hon. Members for Ealing, North and Brent, South, who take such a keen interest in these matters, no doubt rejoice and boast to their constituents that


another £50 million has been made available for the NHS. Not a penny of that is filtering down to Botleys Park hospital.
Let us be factual about the matter. While it would be possible to identify matters such as the gift of ships to Poland or the giving of aid to Mozambique—which could be cut out of public expenditure at no great loss, the money being spent on the NHS instead—it is also possible, without arguing for any additional expenditure, to say that there are resources which could and should be better spent.
That is what the debate is about. I am astonished that it is not a censure debate. It is a poor way to celebrate 30 years of the NHS to have to say that waiting lists for the mentally handicapped, urgent cases, are growing longer; that there is, as all hon. Members know, increasing industrial friction within the NHS and that the position is evidently unlikely to improve in the short term.
In such a situation it behoves hon. Members on both sides of the House to ask themselves where the priorities lie. Of course, nobody would contemplate holding patients hostage. But there is another way of looking at the matter. The hon. Member for Brent, South spoke about the rights of workers in the NHS. If one wishes to complete that argument, it is necessary to think about their duties as well, because rights and duties balance one another.
In the end, the community must decide what sort of health service it wants. The community has to pay for it. The hospitals work for all of us, for the healthy as well as the sick. The question which worries me, and which the debate brings out, is this: are we not in some danger of losing the right, as a democracy, to decide what sort of hospitals we want? Is this not being taken away from us? After 30 years of the NHS, I do not find that a very encouraging reflection to be driven to.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I think that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will forgive me if I do not go all the way with him in his submissions. I cannot understand why he got so angry with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), who accused the right hon. Member for Wan-

stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) of being the supreme trade union basher. I could only think that it was because the hon. Gentleman had a much better trade union bashing argument to submit.
If the alleged matters have been going on in the National Health Service, they must cause us all concern. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if anyone went into an operating theatre, pulled out a plug and deliberately ended someone's life, if action as deplorable as the instances alleged were being taken every day by all those who work in the NHS, by now the NHS would have broken down. Any such action is to be deplored. To say that it is the rule rather than very rare is irresponsible.
But what is even more vulgar and deplorable is to use such arguments for political advantage. That is what we have mainly heard this afternoon, and I find it distressing. Anyone listening to the debate so far would have thought that practically everyone—every doctor, nurse, auxiliary worker and administrator—within the NHS was a nefarious person with ill designs on the entire British nation.
I know that there is nothing that the Conservatives would not stoop to now that they know there is a General Election coming. Would any stranger, witnessing their crocodile tears, believe that the Conservatives, who speak of the noble concept, the wonderful, compassionate idea that is the NHS, fought tooth and nail to prevent its being born? I hope that the silence from the Conservative Benches indicates some remnant of embarrassment—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Molloy: The right hon. Gentleman is a great authority on the subject.
We have to try to be sensible. It would be silly for us to say that everything done by the trade unions in the Health Service is perfect and wonderful. Equally, it would be grossly inaccurate for Tory Members to put forward certain selected cases and seek to represent them as normal practice. I hope that the Minister will tell the House, in view of what was said by the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford, how many people died, or suffered and died as a result of


that suffering, following industrial action. That is the test.
I agree with what I believe the hon. Member for Woking was trying to say on this point. He was perhaps too shy to say it. There cannot be a dispute unless there are two sides to the argument. It may be that a dispute is caused by a trade union which is not just or temperate. On the other hand, such a dispute could arise as a result of coarse or insensitive management. I believe that that is the more likely proposition.

Mr. Onslow: I am always obliged to any hon. Member who attempts to improve on my speeches. That cannot be too difficult. What I was trying to say was that it does not make much sense to argue about where to put the deckchairs when the "Titanic" is sinking.

Mr. Molloy: Have we just heard some Freudian slip? Are the Opposition hoping that the "Titanic" of the Health Service will sink? We shall not let it sink. We created it and we shall save it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South has made the point that there are levels within the National Health Service at which it is difficult for trade unions to negotiate. Many of the issues with which they are concerned, sometimes to the point of exasperation, have nothing to do with wage increases or conditions of service. They are related to the attempt to improve conditions for the patients they try to serve. It would be wrong for the House to give the impression that the millions who work for and are associated with the NHS are not trying to give of their best in this most noble of services. It is wrong for the Tory Opposition to give that impression.
As serious as irresponsible trade union action or stupid management action—which, it appears from our experience, takes place too often—is the ganging-up of consultants within the pay bed system which stops someone from having a vital operation because they do not have the money. This is vulgar. We all assume that those who use the pay beds and receive preferential treatment pay once they have received that treatment. But that is not true. Many hospitals have been stung as a result of someone jumping the queue and promising to pay for a bed

but subsequently vanishing without paying a halfpenny.
These are the types of people who ought to be condemned by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, not the others whom he mentioned. If the Opposition want to implement all the wonderful things they have talked about, it is necessary for them to unite with all other parties to bring about Aneurin Bevan's dream of a free and comprehensive Health Service at the point of need. That is something which the Tory Party has never been prepared to accept.
Much of the work carried out by COHSE, especially in the mental health area, has nothing to do with the wages or conditions of its members. It is working to deal with the faults within the NHS. Let us put that on the credit side. Much of the time of unions such as COHSE is taken up in examining what can be done to improve the efficiency of the service and making recommendations to successive Governments, sometimes without much success.
Many of the problems within the service could be avoided if we were prepared to allocate the money which the service demands. The hon. Member for Woking remarked that I sometimes seem to get upset about some aspects of the NHS. Let me tell him about the latest example. It has nothing immediately to do with the Health Service or with nurses, auxiliary workers or the unions. In Ealing we have been waiting for over seven years for the completion of a hospital which ought to have been constructed in two or three years at the most. I had to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
The hospital was partly built and it has been necessary to repair the damage that has been caused to this hospital. This is a far greater disgrace than anything mentioned this afternoon. During the long campaign to have this hospital built, the people in Ealing received the massive support of COHSE—not because it wanted the doctors, the nurses and the auxiliary workers to have employment but because it could see a need in that part of London and realised that somewhere in the upper echelons of the Health Service insufficient pressure was being exerted. This is to the credit of the trade union movement.
While many matters need to be put right in the NHS, it would be frightful if our people believed that they were at grave risk when they entered hospital because of the attitude of the millions who work in the NHS. It would be an enormous crime to produce such an inference, for whatever reasons. I trust that we shall have a much more balanced appreciation of the Service. Let us recognise what is wrong and condemn dangerous behaviour wherever it arises—whether in the higher echelons of management, among the consultants or the trade unions. In some instances it has been possible that an industrial dispute would involve a withdrawal of labour. In such cases no action has been taken by COHSE until there has been a guarantee to the effect that services can continue so that no one's life will be in danger. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to give some statistics along these lines.
I acknowledge that some of the matters submitted by both sides of the House are damaging to the National Health Service and should be eliminated wherever possible. But I believe that we in this House also have a responsibility to acknowledge that much depends on the allocation of resources. Many of the irritations and other things that are a cause of concern and worry to those working in the NHS and to the public who require the services of the NHS are caused by the fact that we are not giving it the money it demands. We must go further.
The NHS is a noble endeavour. It is almost the apotheosis of the principle of the good Samaritan. We have to say all these things, and if we mean them we must have the courage to vote to the National Health Service the funds that it requires to achieve what we believe that it can achieve for the benefit of the people.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I very much agree with the closing words of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). My right hon. and hon. Friends would like to join the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) in conveying our best wishes to the Secretary of State for Social Services for a speedy recovery.
I do not normally speak for the Liberal Party on health matters, so I make it clear at once that I do not have the expertise that many hon. Members have. But, like the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), I have nothing but praise for the hospitals with which I have been associated, as a fairly frequent visitor, or as a guest at management meetings, having sat in on several in the Isle of Wight, or as a patient. On behalf of my constituents, I can say that we have nothing but praise for the hospitals in the Isle of Wight. We have a magnificent new maternity wing at St. Mary's. The Minister himself is coming on Thursday to open our new geriatric day centre.
Despite all the pitfalls of the NHS, an enormous amount has been done over the years, and, like the hon. Member for Brent, South, I believe that it is far too often used as an Aunt Sally by the Press. I welcome the subject of the debate. I find myself very much in agreement with the comments of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. Those things needed to be said. Like him, I was impressed by the recent article by Hugo Young in The Sunday Times and the challenge that he presented to the political parties.
The whole subject has some poignancy for me. This is because my father died in the early 1970s as a result of extensive power cuts in the London area, not, I hasten to add, because of a dispute in the NHS. Therefore, like, I am sure, other hon. Members, I know what can happen if power or heat is suddenly withdrawn, as might have happened again a fortnight ago. To put life at risk through a withdrawal of labour as a means to force through a settlement of a dispute can surely never be right. I personally cannot accept such actions. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said as much last Friday week, and I very much agreed with him.
That is one of the reasons why I could not support the firemen's strike. Whatever the merits of their case—and there may well have been merits in parts of the country—I could not see how decent men, normally so kindly disposed and to whom we owe a great deal, could withdraw their labour and put people's lives at risk. Such a case is, of course, far worse when it affects the National


Health Service. The sooner that we as a nation totally reject such action, the healthier the atmosphere will be in which discussions can take place. People's lives must not be put in jeopardy in this way.
That is not to say that I do not appreciate the frustrations which are affecting all sections of the NHS. That includes doctors and consultants—and senior consultants certainly have frustrations, since it appears that junior hospital doctors are now earning more money than they are, which is another situation created because the Secretary of State was forced into an ill thought-out settlement two or three years ago. Nurses and engineers, too, have grounds for complaint.
I found such action hard to accept when the consultants carried it out three years ago in withdrawing some of their services. I expressed the same view as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford apparently did to the consultants. That action was a dreadful example from professional people which I never expected to see in this country and which I hope never to see again.
I am a great supporter of the National Health Service. Over the past weekend I seem to have been receiving nothing but calls from constituents telephoning me from private nursing homes or complaining about dentists who are withdrawing from the NHS. I went to a private nursing home in my constituency on Saturday afternoon to meet a constituent who has contributed for over 20 years to BUPA. He has been paying £250 to £260 a year to BUPA for help which now it is needed has not been forthcoming. He is not the only one to complain about this. A lady aged 72 telephoned me to inform me that my own dentist was about to go private. That means that I, too, shall have to leave his list. She told me "I have phoned up three dentists in the constituency but they cannot take me on. I cannot afford to pay dental fees."
This is the other side of the story. I hope that the Conservative Party will realise what can happen if we do not take to heart the last words of the hon. Member for Ealing, North and provide a greater share of the nation's wealth for the NHS. We know that this country does not contribute as much to its health services as many other countries do to

theirs. We do not, for instance, give as must of our gross domestic product as does the United States. But, whatever the faults of our NHS, I could not accept living in a country where, for example, 40 per cent. of the bankruptcies in California arise from doctors pursuing their patients for their fees. That would be a dreadful situation to contemplate returning to. If, in order to get more money into the NHS, we have to put extra taxes on cigarettes and drink, I am all for it. Why on earth do we not do it?
But the frustration comes not only through lack of money but through management procedures which have become more complicated and need to be simplified. I welcome the constructive remarks about this emanating from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. He has been trying to tackle the situation in reports that we have seen in the newspapers. The Government, too, are beginning to see that there must be some amalgamations between areas and regions. This is all on the right lines. There will have to be changes in the administration of the NHS.

Mr. Pavitt: In considering the question of resources and allocation, of course it is right that we should look not only to the global sum but to the way it is put out. 'Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that when the Conservatives left office we were spending 4 per cent. of the gross national product on the NHS but now we are spending 6 per cent.—half as much again? But there is a limit to the amount of money one can find.

Mr. Ross: Of course I agree that the problem is that this country must create more wealth as a nation and then we can devote more of that money to the things that we badly need. I disagree with the Conservative line that we can go on cutting public expenditure. I want to see more spent on things like hospitals, health services, roads, education, concessionary fares and so on. We have to be prepared as a nation to face up to the situation. For example, I also want better mental health facilities. I have paid two visits to Broadmoor, and I have been staggered by the dreadful lack of provision of mental health facilities, particularly for teenagers.
There also has to be a more realistic wage structure. It is true that the wages paid in the NHS are often below those which can be obtained outside. It is true in the case of the engineers, and it is certainly a reflection on our moral values that nurses are not paid as much as some secretaries in this House who are probably doing half the work that nurses do. These things are all true. We certainly need more surgeries and more operating theatres. We need to give more priority to these problems.
The NHS was a wonderful concept. It must not be allowed to flounder through lack of funds or commitment on the part of the political parties. As a House, I believe that we should be able to agree on that. If the leadership can be given from this House that we intend to provide the resources needed by the Health Service, and that we intend to deal urgently with the anomalies, then the threats to life and limb will surely disappear.
I am sure that hon. Members have seen the series of articles by Mr. Hugh Hebert which have appeared in The Guardian and which ended on Thursday. In the last paragraph of the last article he wrote:
A young enthusiastic doctor, who works in a crumbling Victorian pile far from London, said to me recently: 'What's right about the health service? The first thing that's right is that however poor or inarticulate a patient is, he can get treatment without money entering into it. That's a principle that's almost worth dying for. Cash doesn't enter into the doctor-patient relationship at all. And secondly, I have the right to give the patient the best treatment I can without thinking about the cost.' That remains true, however much or little money the NHS has—and the lesson of 30 years is that it will never have enough.
I welcome those statements and they sum up my own sentiments entirely.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: In all our debates on the NHS every speaker advocates either increased expenditure or a reallocation of existing expenditure. Only very rarely do we get down to the basic proposition which underlies the Health Service, which is that, in addition to what was quoted from The Guardian by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), there is also the fact that the Health Service does not exist for the workers in it, whether doctors or

manual workers, but for the patients who are unfortunate enough to have to seek its help. Anything which threatens the welfare or the well-being of those patients must be frowned upon, and all steps must be taken by everyone concerned to eliminate the causes of those threats.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) I am a sponsored member of the Confederation of Health Service Employees. I bow to no one in saying without fear of qualification that from top to bottom the workers in the NHS, probably more than workers in any other service, are noteworthy for their selfless dedication. The industrial action about which we are all concerned at present must, nevertheless, be seen in its proper context. It really is minimal. When one looks at the history of the NHS over its 30 years, one will see that the amount of industrial action which has been engaged in quite properly has been fractional compared with any other industry or service throughout the length and breadth of the land.
That is not to say that such industrial action is any the less serious when it occurs. However, as has been pointed out by several of my hon. Friends, if we are to be fair minded about this, we must emphasise that such industrial action as there has been has not been confined to manual workers. Some of the most reprehensible behaviour has been engaged in by the medicals—the consultants, the junior doctors and the rest. If we condemn the manual workers we ought not to smooth over the more reprehensible actions of the others, because the more well paid sections become, the more reprehensible for any action which they might take.
Whenever such action occurs it inevitably hits the headlines. All too often Conservative newspapers and Tory politicians are more than eager to exploit these events for their own nefarious political purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) was quite right to castigate the right hon Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). He made not even a veiled attack but an open, unconcealed attack on the trade unions, separately and collectively. As a sponsored Member, I take very strong exception to those attacks. There is no more responsible or moderate trade union operating within the Health


Service than the Confederation of Health Service Employees. It is dedicated to the preservation and improvement of the NHS, and nowhere more so than in the mental health service, the Cinderella of the Service. Yet the right hon. Gentleman chose to castigate in unequivocal terms every single union which is engaged within the NHS.
He said that no plumber, no electrician, no cook, or anyone individually employed in the Health Service would seek to take action to jeopardise the welfare of any patient. But he then went on to say that collectively the consciences of the trade unions to which those people belong are somehow dulled. In other words, he was saying that the National Union of Public Employees, COHSE and the rest are prepared collectively to threaten the lives of patients. That is a squalid, indefensible and inexcusable charge which must be refuted by this House.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to advance causes of the industrial unrest. He couched his proposals in fairly general terms. I suppose that was inevitable. I do not complain too much about that. I agree with him that there must be better management. It is very easy to make a general announcement of principle. But any faults there may be are highly likely to be the direct consequence of the reorganisation of the Health Service implemented by the previous Tory Government, who have a lot to answer for in this area. I hope that the Minister will refer to this and will indicate what progress is being made to remedy these grievances.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford made an interesting observation in this context. He said—and I quote the words which he used almost exactly verbatim, because I took them down—"If you treat people like dirt, they will behave like dirt". It was not very elegantly put, but it called to my mind a comment made some years ago by a very prominent, and by Tory standards very liberal, ex Tory Minister, now Lord Eccles, who used the expression:
Treat 'em mean and make 'em keen".
That was the Tory philosophy which was carried out in practical terms within the Health Service in the early 1960s. The late Mr. Speaker, Lord Selwyn Llovd.

who was the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the man who sought to implement Tory incomes policy by first knocking the nurses on the head.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was at that time an ardent supporter of that same incomes policy which knocked the nurses. They were to get 3½ per cent. and no more. It must be remembered that at that time they received a tiny fraction of incomes which they are now receiving. Now, less than a week ago, the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition no less, indicated that a future incomes policy of a Conservative Government will be much more stringent against people in the public sector than against people in the private sector. That means precisely the people about whom we are talking today. It means the nurses.
According to the right hon. Lady, the 1 million workers in the Health Service will be the first for the knock. That is the clear implication of what she was saying. That, coupled with the Tory threats to make far more vicious cuts in public expenditure, not excluding the Health Service, as "The Right Approach" makes abundantly clear, will mean that the difficulties facing the National Health Service today, serious though they are, will be devastating if the Conservatives come to power.

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Member cannot get away with that.

Mr. Hamilton: I was interested to overhear that interjection sotto voce—that I should not be allowed to get away with that—

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Member knows that what he is saying is totally misleading. Our party is pledged not to reduce resources in the National Health Service at all, and he knows that.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member had better re-read "The Right Approach". I think that I have probably read it more thoroughly and more often than he has. I know his party's policy better than he does. If he looks at the section on the Health Service he will see that it says that all the charges will go up. That means prescription charges, and charges for dental and optical services and so on.
It also says that there are to be two services—an increased private provision


and a public sector. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has said that the public sector will include the Cinderella services—the geriatrics, and the mental patients—while the private sector will include all the others. In other words, we shall have two Health Services, and one will be able to go into the private sector only if one has the brass. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I know the manifesto of the Tory Party, and I know that this is so.

Dr. Vaughan: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member must curb his impatience.

Dr. Vaughan: Where will these supposed cuts fall?

Mr. Hamilton: I am telling the hon. Member where the cuts will be. If there are to be two services and one of them is a public service, obviously the public service will be the Cinderella. One can imagine all the public resources that a Tory Government, devoted to creating two services, would spend on geriatrics and mental health people. They will say "If you cannot pay the cash you will do without the service."
There would be a division in the medical profession as well. The cream of the medical profession would go to the private sector and the public sector would once again be the Cinderella. Let nobody pretend about the issue of the National Health Service when the General Election comes along.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford ended with a rallying cry. He called for a Geneva Convention on the Health Service—come what may the patients will not suffer. By God, under the Tory proposals they would suffer. Those are fine words, but as has been said already, fine words butter no parsnips. We have on the record now in black and white what the Tory Party are committed to do within the Health Service.
I end with a slight castigation of my own Front Bench. I agree entirely with those who have said that the Health Service in the last 30 years has suffered from financial restrictions of one kind and another. The basic principle of the service has been diluted by successive Governments—by the introduction of charges and so on.
The simple reason for that is that as a nation we have not been producing enough wealth to satisfy the growing demands on the Health Service, the services for which, whether it be the salary of a nurse or the cost of a drug, have increased in cost far more rapidly than our overall GNP. This is the basic reason for the troubles that are the subject of today's debate, not managerial procedure, or whatever. It is the frustrations created by the shortage of resources devoted to this magnificent service.
I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State is in hospital. Nevertheless I say to him and his colleagues on the Front Bench that they are not as committed to the basic principles of the Health Service as I would like them to be. I would like my right hon. Friend to be bloody minded in the Cabinet Room. I think that he should demand more resources for the National Health Service. I fear that he does not do that with the kind of venom that is needed in his Department. That is the only way to get resources out of the Treasury. The Treasury is a mean-minded Department and one must be mean minded with it in order to get what one is entitled to. I fear that we have not got the venom or the conviction of a Nye Bevan at the moment. I fear that that is what we are suffering from at present, not the kind of shortcomings and trivialities to which we have devoted our time this afternoon.

5.27 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Indeed it is not only possible but likely that Conservatives are far more aware of what is in the Conservative manifesto than is the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Some of us simply cannot wait to put the Conservative manifesto in front of the electorate because we are confident that we shall gain support when we explain what we intend to do.
Two tactics have been used by the Government Back-Bench speakers this afternoon. One is that they have taken the view that attack is the best method of defence, but they are trying to defend the indefensible. The other is to attempt to draw the fire from the main subject that we are debating. We are talking about the threat to patients from disputes in the National Health Service.
I was very pleased to read a few weeks ago that there were to be moves to formulate a code of practice. Although Members opposite may not be worried about the actions of the Health Service unions, persons within those unions are very worried. The suggestion of the code of practice came from a member of COHSE. He said that a code of practice must be formulated because it could not be tolerated in this country that sick people should be made to suffer from union disputes. I was pleased to see that a resolution was put forward to that effect and I was appalled when it was fiercely opposed and finally rejected. I could not believe that that was its fate. It seemed so reasonable and sensible for COHSE members to see that the public were becoming severely troubled about the way in which sick people were being made to suffer by these disputes.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said that we were in for an afternoon of union bashing. All I will say about that is that when unions ask for a bashing it is a cowardly politician indeed who fails to bash them. I have a great deal of support for the original principle of the trade unions in working for a fair day's pay in return for a fair day's work. That is very honourable. But what we are seeing today is the unacceptable face of trade unionism—trade unionism within the Health Service which has become heartless, totally selfish and cruel.
Perhaps it is true that we used to have autocrats in the Health Service. But today we have tyrants. The old-time consultant was often an autocrat and so was the matron. What a pity that we have no more matrons—the patients have suffered from that. A godlike status was accorded to consultants but it was commensurate with their efforts in patient care. These were people who had studied for many years and had spent many more years acquiring experience. They gave freely of their time and expertise to help the sick.
It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, South that workers in the Health Service could get paid more money outside. In the early days, even before the NHS began, many cases were on record of consultants giving their time totally freely without any concern for hours worked, or the number of times

they were called upon day or night, or indeed whether they received any money at all for their services. Today's tyrants have no such qualifications or experience and show no readiness to give their time freely.
Worst of all, today's tyrants have no regard for the patient. There are many cases on record in which operations have been put off by disputes within the NHS, leaving people in pain. Elderly and sick people have been moved about like pawns. Because of the dispute in one hospital they have been pulled out of that hospital and put in another in order to have their treatment continued. Many patients have been exposed to the lesser discomfort—but nevertheless a discomfort—of having no proper sheets or towels. Tiny babies have suffered grievously, some have even died.
Many private patients have been victimised in petty and unkind ways. In some cases one has taken the view "How could people be so unkind to sick men and women just because they chose to go into hospital as private patients?" Many people decide to spend their money on health treatment rather than on beer, bingo or anything else, which apparently is quite acceptable to the Government. I do not think it right that sick people who choose to take what is left of their income after the tax man has had his slice and to spend it on private care should be victimised in the way that they so often have been.
Today we have news that COHSE and NUPE have refused to allow the Royal College of Nursing to represent its members at pay talks. That is indefensible. The Royal College represents 105,000 nurses. The College was founded on 27th March 1916–62 years ago. Yet COHSE and NUPE want the College to be stripped of national and local negotiating rights just because it is not affiliated to the TUC. When did COHSE start? When did NUPE begin its operations? Certainly those bodies have nothing like the record of 62 years' service to nursing. It is appalling that those bodies should be so tyrannical in attempting to strip the College of its right to negotiate on behalf of its members.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): If the hon. Lady is seeking after knowledge and wants to know when the


National Union of Public Employees began, let me tell her that it began its operations about 1895.

Mrs. Knight: If it commenced in about 1895, it must have been extremely inept. It had obviously then been going for many years when the Royal College of Nursing decided that something must be done and set up as a college. I am astonished to hear the date given by the Minister. Surely he is not suggesting that NUPE could have been competent, because if it had been competent there would have been no need in 1916 for the Royal College to be set up.
The Royal College of Nursing has said "We will fight these undemocratic trade union moves to the bitter end." That demonstrates that there is a great deal of bad blood and friction between the Royal College and COHSE and NUPE. That can only be bad for the patients.
I was recently hospitalised for a short time and I was shocked to see the standard of cleanliness in the wards. That standard has sadly fallen in recent years. I have since visited other hospitals and I have been sorry to notice similar low standards there. I made inquiries about cleaning. I was told that the hospital cleaner came into the ward in a desultory fashion, swept round the ward and left it, leaving many piles of dust quite untouched. When I asked why this was tolerated, I was given a rather strange reply. Surely hospitals of all places should be clean, but I was told that it was quite impossible to argue with the unions because, if there was any argument about the standard of cleanliness operated in the wards by the people who swept them, there would immediately be a strike. I was also told that when the cleaners went off it was the nurses who cleaned the wards themselves when conditions got too bad.

Mr. Molloy: Nonsense.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman may not like to hear this, but these are the facts. He can check their veracity for himself. All this has been inconvenient for the nurses, and it is certainly not good for patients that standards have been allowed to slip so far.
I should like to know how much trade unionism of this kind is costing the NHS

and whether that cost is avoidable. Some time ago my husband was hospitalised. He was desperately ill and I sat by his bedside for many hours. Over his bed was a socket for a lamp. There was no light for the simple reason that there was no bulb in the socket. The sister came in and said "We need that light on. Would you mind reaching out to switch it on?" I said "I'm sorry, sister, but there is no bulb in the socket." She bustled off and came back with a sheaf of forms which she proceeded to fill in. I asked "What are you doing?". She said "I am indenting for a light bulb." I asked "What does that involve?" She said "I fill in three forms and they get sent down to the electricians' department. Those requests w ill then be processed in the electricians' department and eventually a bulb will come up with the electrician carrying it and he will place it in the socket."
I said "How long will all this take?" She said "It should not take more than about three days." I said "Please do not go to all that trouble. When I go out to lunch I shall bring a bulb back with me and place it in the socket myself." The sister blenched. She said "Please do not do that because there will be a strike at once." [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."] That is the absolute truth and I do not regard it as a laughing matter. Perhaps Labour Members are not competent to put an electric bulb in a socket, but I can assure them that the most inexperienced schoolboy or schoolgirl knows how to put a bulb in a socket.
Why is it necessary for a highly paid electrician to be indented to cause him to have to come up to a ward to place a bulb in a light socket? One has only to bear in mind how many sockets there are in a hospital. This was a demand by the trade unions concerned that trade union members should be the only ones allowed to put an electric light bulb in a socket. I am all for electricians handling jobs that only electricians can do, but this is such a simple task. We read in today's newspapers that electricians in hospitals have had a wage rise bringing their basic money to £70 a week. I gather that this would mean an average payment of £80 a week. That appears to illustrate that it would cost almost £1 to replace a light bulb without even paying for the bulb. This is the type of


practice that we should have the sense to change, for it must be costing the NHS a great deal of money.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), I am anxious that we should have more teamwork in hospitals. We demand that there should be no strikes in the NHS. My right hon. Friend rightly condemned all strike action, including that suggested on behalf of the junior hospital doctors. All strike action in hospitals is bad. All strike action that harms people is bad. If we say that there should be no strikes in the NHS, there is a duty on us all to see that people in the Health Service are paid a fair amount for the work they do and are treated as a team. That is the Opposition view and I shall be amazed if there are still Labour Members who will attempt to defend the indefensible.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for her vivid description of something that is wrong in the provision of health care in hospitals. The story of the light bulb is not a laughing matter. I am not concerned about whose fault it is that forms have to be filled in before a light bulb can be provided, but I am sure that the Minister knows that such problems exist.
There are bureaucratic barriers which must be removed and my hon. Friend the Member fo Edgbaston was right to colour her argument with such a vivid story, which was so close to her at an anxious time in her life and her husband's life. She was talking about patients and that is what the debate is about. It is not about the 1 million people who serve in the NHS. It is about the millions of people served by them—the sick and the dying.
There are great problems in the National Health Service. Every speaker has admitted that fact. There are problems for all those working in the NHS, which is the biggest industrial enterprise in Britain today. Great problems face them all, whether they are administrators at the top of the tree, top consultants or those at the lower end of the delivery of health care. There are also problems for

those who want a service from the NHS, but I wish to direct my remarks to the problems of those working in the Service. Let us examine what has sometimes driven them over the limit of what we are prepared to stand for as a society.
Sometimes the strains on NHS employees have been almost too much for them to endure. They have resulted from inadequate pay and excessive burdens at work. Hon. Members have mentioned the consultants and the junior doctors, but no one has referred to the enormous strains imposed on young housemen in the first year after they qualify as doctors. Sometimes they work 160 hours a week—impossible hours in any other enterprise, but allowed in the National Health Service. These strains have been sorted out as a result of the junior housemen going to the limit in pressing their demands. I do not agree that they should have gone to those limits and I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said about their action. But they revealed the impossible burden put on them in their first year of work as doctors.
Many other strains exist for those working in the NHS, apart from the question of overtime and excessive work. There are problems produced by staff shortage. Hospitals work far below their establishments of nurses and other essential services. In some hospitals, working conditions do not match up to the requirements of modern factory Acts. There are some hospitals where even the sanitation provisions are not up to the level found in modern offices and factories. Such are the conditions in the nineteenth century hospitals in which so many people have to care for the sick and do their best to carry out their jobs efficiently.
The problems and strains apply to almost everyone in the NHS, whether they are consultants, registrars, nurses, radiographers, scientific and technical officers, electricians, plumbers, ambulancemen, orderlies, porters, catering staff, cleaners or clerical and administrative staff. In these days of inflation and the under-funding of our Health Service, it is understandable that employees in the NHS feel frustrated and, at times, very angry indeed. Like the rest of us, they have to keep up with inflation and face up to its problems. They are married


people with children to educate, feed and clothe. They have the problems of living in these days of inflation.
I have heard many people say that inflation is evil. We have seen the evil that inflation can breed in an area of society where compassion should be the overriding priority and, at base, still is the overriding priority. We see inflation producing an evil that bursts out every now and again and hurts the good name of the British National Health Service. Like everyone else, people in the NHS want to keep up with the Joneses and we should not say that they should not be able to keep up with the Joneses.
I declare an interest because I serve on a regional health authority and I am a director of a pharmaceutical company. The management in the Health Service must recognise the desires and aspirations of everyone working in the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford was right to speak of the need for better management and procedures and for the removal of the sort of bureaucratic barriers that were illustrated so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston.

Mr. Molloy: Those barriers were set up by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

Mr. Crouch: Let us not argue about who created the barriers. Parliament created the barriers and produced certain problems. I work in the service and I do not suggest that all the problems in the NHS stem from the type of management that we have in it. However, I claim that many of our problems stem from inadequacy in management, which is a different thing altogether.
Management in the NHS must not rest on its laurels and on the feeling that the spirit of dedication of doctors, nurses and others in the service will ensure that there is less urgency about their problems than about those in other areas of public service or in industry. We must not draw on the reservoir of good will and the deposits of dedication to service of the sick. Nothing less than good management will do if we are to correct the problems of the NHS.
However, just as management must not trade on dedication, no one who works in the Health Service serving the sick must trade the patients in any dispute

concerning pay and conditions. The patients must never be allowed to become bargaining counters in these material arguments. As I have already said, material arguments are important. We must recognise that they exist. We must understand them and seek a solution to them. But we must never allow the patients to become bargaining counters and to be traded against other issues in disputes.
We have a duty to remind everyone in the National Health Service that the patient must be above disputes. The patient must be the first concern of those who work in the National Health Service, and the patient must also be our first concern. The public must recognise this fact. Parliament—let alone the Minister and the Government—has a duty to establish clearly, for the whole of our society to see, that the patient comes first, without conditions.
Let Parliament establish something else from this short debate today—that strikes and picket lines will have no place in our hospitals. If we were to reach the stage where they had a place, we should have reached the end of the road. I am not prepared to accept that. We have a responsibility to bring home to everyone, in and out of the NHS—

Mr. Molloy: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "out of the NHS"?

Mr. Crouch: I am referring to those who work in the NHS and the general body of the public—everyone in this country. We must establish that hospital closures and shut-downs put lives at risk. This was revealed clearly in the hospital dispute the other day in London. It arose out of a very understandable concern on the part of electricians and plumbers at not being able to keep pace with inflation. That dispute was eventually solved by the intervention of the Government, and by the skill of the Minister of State and the skill of the Secretary of State. We know that the Secretary of State is a sick man. We send him our best wishes today and hope that he will soon be out of hospital and back with us.
I give credit to the Government for the way in which they were able to solve that dispute rapidly, but I also give credit somewhere else. The matter was aired in Parliament one Friday morning. The Secretary of State came to the House


and made a statement about his belief and the Government's belief that there is no place for strikes and picket lines in the NHS. He said that lives would be at stake. It was a dramatic statement. It was heard throughout the country and it was heard in the union concerned.
I never had any doubt that the union, which had always been reasonable in the past in its approach to these matters, would recognise that it must not trade a patient's life—not even one patient's life —in the bargain that it was seeking to drive. I am glad to say that when Parliament spoke with a strong voice, with strong leadership from the Secretary of State, the union listened, because the public was behind the Government and behind Parliament.
The position was made clear in this House, and one could feel it in the country. It was not just the headlines in the Press. The mood was reflected in a feeling that, having gone to the brink, this was too far. The Secretary of State will no doubt read tomorrow what has been said in this debate. I take my hat off to him for having stood up and answered some very tough questioning, and for giving a lead in the way that he did.
I do not believe that the message is a difficult one to put over. I believe in the dedication of those who serve the sick. I believe that they are all prepared, from the top to the bottom, to accept this limitation on their opportunities for industrial action. I am sure that this was recognised when the Secretary of State gave a lead a fortnight ago. He must give another lead. He must make clear, across the length and breadth of the NHS, to all the varieties of representation which exist, from the consultants down to the porters, that they must all accept and agree that there are now unwritten codes of behaviour in regard to pressing a case or a claim in the National Health Service, because patients and patients' lives are at stake.

Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with nearly everything that he has said. Now that I have agreed with him, I hope that he will agree with me that what irritates many young doctors, nurses and auxiliary workers is that some people are jumping

the queue and occupying beds which ought to be occupied by more deserving people. These young doctors, nurses and auxiliary workers, with their dedication to the National Health Service, are greatly irritated when people are admitted to hospital not on the basis of priority but because they can pay the money.

Mr. Crouch: I know the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. It has been made frequently over the last two or three years. His Government have been fighting very hard to eliminate all private patients. I cannot support him on this point. I am sorry.
I want to get on to another aspect which relates to the whole of society. I want the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, and their officials, and also the members and officials of health authorities, to get out more into the field, so that they may see what happens where the battle is taking place. I want them to see what it is like at the place where patients are cared for—in the hospitals, in the health centres, at the general practitioners' surgeries, and so on. I want them to see what happens at all these places in which a million people are working in the NHS to look after the sick, the anxious, the very ill and the disabled. It will help enormously if the Secretary of State will give this lead to all those who work under him, from the permanent secretary downwards. I hope that they will urge people to get out into the the field, so that they may see on the spot what is happening.

Mr. Moyle: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. I am anxious to find out what suggestions he has, but I should like him to know that at the moment I go out into the National Health Service on at least one day a week, sometimes two. Whenever I do so I talk to the staff side as well as to the management. It would be very difficult for me to do my job here if I were to do any more visiting.

Mr. Crouch: The Minister has anticipated what I was about to say. I am asking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to go on giving this lead, but to ensure that their lead is followed by their officials.

Mr. Molloy: Hear, hear.

Mr. Crouch: I hope that their lead will be followed by their officials in Alexander Fleming House and their officials in the 14 regions and 90 areas in England and Wales—and also in Scotland—to ensure that those who deliver health care, the doctors, the consultants, the nurses, the radiographers, the ancillary workers, the porters, and everyone involved, will see that management and administrators are interested in what they are doing and are in a position to hear about their problems. I want to see the administrators getting much closer to those who work in the NHS and closer to the patients.
I learned more about health care and about the dedication of the doctors, consultants, nurses, cleaners and everybody in the NHS, when my wife was in Guy's hospital for a fortnight in a public ward built in about 1860, than I learned in eight years working in the NHS as a remote administrator. I learned by being able 10 see for myself on the spot, rather than being concerned with paper work, the re-allocation of resources, and so on.
I believe that administrators of all sorts have become remote—or, at least, have often seemed to become remote—from those who are working in the field. A closer understanding between administrators and the men and women working at the point of delivery of health care—if I may use that complicated, almost legal, phrase—would lead to better management.
In my opinion, the NHS as underfunded. It is short of money. It seems to be over-managed. It does not seem to be short of administrators. But the real problem is none of those things. The real problem is one of frustration that it is being taken for granted, frustration that it is being overlooked. We must tackle this problem and correct it. We must never allow the patient to be overlooked and put at risk.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am sure that the House must contrast the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who has practical experience in the hospital service, with the most extraordinary speeches from the Government side of the House. We have heard the Conservative doctrine on the National

Health Service a là West Fife. There have been interruptions from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) which sound like political commercials. He talks a lot about private beds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred to the Secretary of State being in hospital. The hon. Member for Ealing, North used that as an excuse to interrupt. We wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he is soon back in the House. Is the hon. Member for Ealing, North trying to persuade the House that the Secretary of State did not receive priority in order to get a bed in hospital? Is he suggesting that the Secretary of State's illness was any more serious than the illnesses of others on the hospital waiting list? The Secretary of State and his predecessor received priority.

Mr. Pavitt: Anyone with a thrombosis is admitted to hospital immediately, whether he is a Minister or anyone else.

Mr. Costain: I doubt that. Some of my constituents with thrombosis are not admitted immediately. I do not suggest that the Secretary of State should not have been given a hospital bed. But I am fed up with Labour Members saying that a Minister should have priority whereas anyone with money should not. That is what is wrong with the argument.

Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Costain: The hon. Member is always interrupting.

Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked me a question. In my normal, courteous way, I thought that I should try to enlighten him but he refuses to be enlightened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): This is a normal debating point. Unless the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) says something derogatory about the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), he has no right to intervene.

Mr. Costain: I do not wish to say anything derogatory about the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The hon. Member


interrupts every day. He sounds like the same gramophone record. He always asks how the Opposition will save money. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. In the last four years we have considered hospital expenditure. On a recent visit to Liverpool we saw how hospital expenditure has gone through the roof. We saw how £30 million had been overspent. Only when the Public Accounts Committee became involved was £14 million cut off that expenditure. We are talking about saving substantial amounts of money, not chicken feed. The Committee is an all-party Committee. Members of the Labour Party agreed that those savings should be made. The hon. Member for Ealing, North should not make political points about this subject.
The debate is about how we can give a better service to patients. Since I am a Member of the Chairmen's Panel I hope that the House will forgive me if I stick to the issue in hand. We are talking about whether anyone has the right to strike and thereby put peoples lives at risk.
Once upon a time strikes were called in order to make life more difficult for the boss. The boss would lose money through a strike and there was a reason for calling a strike. At one time people went on strike because they believed that it would put the boss's money at risk. Today in the large industries where strikes are most common it is not the boss's money which is at risk. It is not even the shareholders' money. It is the taxpayers' money. There is therefore less reason to strike.
When there is a strike on the railways, who suffers? It is the poor people waiting on Folkestone station in the snow when the driver does not turn out because he is having a row. Today we are talking about those who suffer, who are on the point of dying or ill, because some bloody-minded porter decides that he does not like a pretty girl being treated in a private ward when his wife is waiting for a hospital bed.
Liverpool teaching hospital is not to be opened because a row is in progress. About £5 million has been spent and

there is a row about whether, when this hospital opens, others will close and some people will lost their jobs. That hospital costs £45 million to build. The interest on that money and the depreciation on it involves the fantastic sum of £10 million a year. Every day that that hospital does not open, taxpayers' money is being used, not to provide a service, but for an argument about why it should not open. People argue that my wife, my daughter or my grandchild might be involved. But is that an argument for opening or not opening this hospital?
This is the moment to make an appeal to those who are affected. It is not the time to make party political points or to base an argument on who started the Health Service. We know who started the Health Service—the National Government. We know who reorganised the hospitals. Some of us did not agree with what happened then. But this bunch has had nearly four years in which to put right our mistakes.
Many improvements are spoiled by bureaucracy. Many of my friends are nurses. I have been told by an eminent theatre sister that she joined the hospital service in order to save lives. She says that she used to have enormous job satisfaction by saving someone's life. But now that she is at the top of her profession she spends each day filling in forms. This theatre sister at a well-known London hospital is browned off with form filling.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) mentioned private dentists. My own dentist—and I hope that he does not hear this debate, because I have to see him shortly—has told me that he no longer takes National Health Service patients because he is so sick of filling in forms and explaining his treatment to non-professional people who think that they know more about his patients' mouths than he does. He says that he is now going back to square one and treating private patients only.
If we want to get the service which both sides of the House know is needed—this is what the debate is about—we must make a special appeal. Strikes are out of place. Everyone should get together and organise things properly so that they are not necessary.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has demonstrated and underlined the capacity of hon. Members on the Government Benches to avoid facing unpleasant facts. We have heard a series of speeches from them, on the one hand, about industrial relations troubles in the National Health Service being only figments of Tory imagination, or, on the other hand, when the facts are shown to be proved, telling us that it is just Tory pre-election propaganda. However the truth is well-known to all Members when they go to their constituencies. People tell us about the problems and difficulties being faced in the hospital service.
Although we have heard speeches today referring to the big official disputes, I wish to concentrate on the distressing increase in niggling disputes, disputes which result not in a withdrawal of labour but in work-to-rule, large-scale absenteeism and other forms of unofficial action.
We have had a number of examples of that type of dispute in the West Midlands, and I shall cite two. Neither is of the kind likely to lead to the death of patients, but a great deal of inconvenience is caused. First, there has been a work-to-rule by telephonists. For a time, they were prepared to connect only critical medical telephone calls. They seemed to pay no heed to the effect which such a decision would have on relatives anxious to find out how patients were after operations or treatment of some kind or other. I had the experience myself of telephoning to one of my local hospitals to discuss the matter. After I got through to the appropriate department, a voice came on the line to say "You are not having an urgent telephone conversation" and the next I knew was holding a buzzing disconnected telephone. This is not satisfactory, and such action does not take enough account of people's fears when their relatives are in hospital.
My second example relates to the local ambulance service. I am speaking here not about the emergency ambulance service but about ambulances which take people, usually elderly people, for outpatient treatment—physiotherapy and so forth. We have had a rash of cases of

ambulance men either not bothering to pick up patients or, alternatively, picking them up so late that they are too late for their appointments.
My community health council in Walsall has asked the physiotherapy departments at the local hospital to keep a record of these cases, but it has been told that it would not be in the public interest for them to have such a record. This leads local people to believe that the authorities in the National Health Service are not prepared to face up to the difficulties of industrial relations troubles.
Why have these niggling disputes and problems becomes so prevalent? My hypothesis is that there are two major reasons. First, there is the question of union rivalry between COSHE, NALGO and NUPE, with each union trying to increase its relative membership in the NHS and, to this end, bidding for members and appearing to be aggressive and strident on the workers' behalf.
I understand that the code of conduct now under consideration has so far been seen in terms of the unions vis-à-vis the NHS. I hope that there will be some provision for inter-union codes of conduct in an effort to prevent the demarcation troubles and poaching between unions which has led to a bidding-up attitude among local union organisers.
Secondly, there is the question of pay, career structure and working conditions, especially working conditions, for many non-medical staff in the NHS. Working conditions in many places are undoubtedly poor. The Minister has been to Walsall. Walsall is a typical example of a place with poor working conditions, and I can well understand why many of the workers find them thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Obviously, that state of affairs can be put right only by an increase in resources, but we must understand that the NHS slice of the overall cake cannot be made larger. Taxation is already too high, and incentives are already too low. Although we are all agreed that we must increase the rate of wealth creation, we cannot do so if we increase the burden of general taxation.
Therefore, we must try to improve the use of existing resources, using them more effectively to improve working conditions and thereby cut down the number of niggling disputes. Such an


approach demands imagination at all levels within the NHS, but this is a task in which all who work in the Health Service—I pay unreserved tribute to them —could wholeheartedly join.
I return now to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. It was disappointing that we hardly heard a word from the Government side about positive ways of improving resource utilisation or improving working conditions and employer-employee relations within the Health Service. We have heard all the old shibboleths and mythology trotted out for the nth time.
I hope therefore that, instead of resorting to the sad tired old clichés about union bashing, the Minister will make clear that the Government realise that industrial relations in the National Health Service are unsatisfactory and give cause for public concern. Instead of pursuing a vendetta against pay beds, the Government should look at all the various ways of increasing the revenue of the National Health Service, which we all know is desperately needed. Instead of running away from union power, the Government should remind NHS workers of their duty—their Hippocratic duty—to patients, whose safety and comfort are paramount. I hope that the Government will be more decisive on this issue now than they have been in the past.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make two brief points. First, I refer to a group of NHS workers, school health nurses and tuberculosis visitors, who were heavily penalised by the Halsbury report several years ago. Many had worked for 20 years without certification because they started before certificates came in, and they were put at a penalty of over £1,000 a year. Although it took three years for the Government to find the opportunity to make sure that these hard-working and long-serving NHS employees came back on to the right salary scale, they did not take industrial action and did not even threaten it. That is another side to the issue under debate which ought to be brought out.
Secondly, I refer to the stay at my Eltham and Mottingham hospital. They are under great strain at the moment and

under great temptation to start issuing threats of one kind or another. Their hospital has been recommended for closure by the regional health authority. Public opinion is on their side. The area health authority and the community health council want to keep the hospital going. Yet, here again, these workers have not issued a word of threat, blackmail or anything of the kind. Their concern is for their patients, as was the concern of the school health nurses and tuberculosis visitors. In a debate of this kind, it is important that such examples be brought out and emphasised.

Mr. Pavitt: Hear, hear.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am grateful to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for giving me a minute or so of his time. I have heard most of the debate, and I feel that it should be said that, if what emerges from the debate is no more than a succession of union-bashing arguments, that ought not to be our final conclusion. I take at face value the Opposition's desire not to use the debate simply to get at the Health Service unions, and I think that it should be made clear that the majority of the difficult disputes in the NHS at the moment stem from a genuine effort on the part of members of unions to improve the lot of patients, not their own lot.
The dispute at St. Augustine's hospital in Canterbury arose simply because some young nurses felt that the patients had a raw deal and that the administration was just sitting on top of them. The dispute which has been going on in Greenwich has nothing to do with nurses trying to get more money for themselves. It is a genuine argument about who does what in operating theatres. The dispute at King's College hospital, which we have seen discussed on television, has nothing to do with Health Service workers being greedy and wanting more money for themselves. It arises from a genuine argument between doctors and nurses about how full a hospital can be and still operate properly.
In the light of some of the comments which we have heard from the Opposition, loading all the responsibility for


these problems on COHSE, NUPE and NALGO, the record should be put straight. Most of the problems which come up in the NHS arise from a lack of money, from genuine demarcation disputes and, in some cases, from appalling management. If there is militancy, that militancy was led by the consultants and the junior hospital doctors some time ago. I hope that that spirit will be reflected in both winding-up speeches.

6.19 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: The news that the Secretary of State was still unwell was very sad. I add my wishes, again, for his rapid recovery.
It is also very sad that we have needed to put down a subject such as this for debate this evening, because the Opposition are deeply concerned about the very rapidly falling standards of care in the NHS, and it is the care of patients that we are talking about.
Also, I thought that it was very sad that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) immediately started to divide the House and suggested that all was well on the part of the unions and that all was wrong in what we had been saying.

Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Member was not listening.

Dr. Vaughan: I was listening very carefully. I thought it was particularly sad when the hon. Member said that this debate was about the rights of workers. He never, at any moment, said that this debate was about the rights of patients. That, I am afraid, shows the kind of thinking which most Labour Members have shown in the debate.
In fact, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) who first brought up the question of the needs of patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) brought us back to the realities of the situation and the needs of patients. That is what this debate is all about. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) put the position very fairly and very clearly when he listed over and over again the kinds of damage now being done by industrial disputes within the Health Service.
The Minister said that he has been visiting hospitals. So have I. Most hon. Members know this. I have been visiting a lot of hospitals recently. I find that there is hardly a hospital today which is not restricted in some way by industrial disputes of one kind or another. They do not all hit the headlines. But over and over again, when I talk to hospital staff, they tell me that they cannot do this or they cannot do that because there has been a threat of industrial action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has a list of 36 hospitals where admissions are restricted. As he knows from my intervention, I could give him a very long list indeed of other hospitals which do not appear on that list of his, where the admission of patients is now being handicapped by industrial action. I have mentioned one just round the corner from here. We heard last week about problems in the Bristol area, in the West Country. We hear this over and over again. This is what I am finding when I travel around the country.
The administrative staff are frightened to take action against these restrictions because they have so many problems in keeping the hospitals going that they do not want to add extra problems by arguments about tiny union actions of one sort or another.
For the first time in my life, I am now meeting patients who are seriously afraid to go into hospital—not because of the medical treatment that they will receive, but because they are afraid that they will suffer from some sort of industrial action.
That brings me to one of the other things that the hon. Member for Brent, South tried to do. He tried to suggest that what we were saying was unreal and that it was not happening. That is not the case. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his considerable talents and knowledge of the Health Service to looking at what is going on today.
I shall not go through a long list of examples. My right hon. Friend gave a very clear account of industrial action of one sort or another. But with this background in mind, it seems incredible that on 22nd June the general secretary of COHSE, Mr. Albert Spanswick, should tell the union's annual conference that the care of patients was always the union's


number one priority. Then he went on to make what, in my view, was an even more unreal statement. He said:
No one has ever suffered as a result of industrial action by members of this union.
I cannot accept that, having regard to the information I receive from the people whom I meet. I would ask him where he is getting his information from, because he must be out of touch with his own union members.
I was rather disappointed that the Minister, although it is his right, chose not to speak until the end of the debate, because I thought that many hon. Members would have liked to ask him questions and to comment on his statements. I hope that when he winds up this debate he will deal with the whole range of questions which we have put to him.

Mr. Moyle: I received absolutely no representations, to the effect of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, before this debate started. I decided that if I spoke only once one or two extra Back Bench Members could speak. I thought that, if I was to be the only Minister to speak, I would speak last. That is the background of the arrangements for this debate.

Dr. Vaughan: For that reason also I propose to keep my remarks very short, so that the Minister will, I hope, have ample time to answer every point that we have put to him.
What about the patients who have been refused admission recently? Some of them will die; there is no question about that. What about the patients who have been sent back from operating theatres? What about the enormous increase in the waiting time for urgent investigations? What about the child who died the other day waiting to have her heart investigated? She was not waiting for the operation; she was waiting for the investigations which would have led to the operation. Is that right?
I suggest to Labour Members that they should examine their consciences and look very closely at what is happening in the Health Service, because there is an opportunity for both sides of this House to combine with ideas, nonparty ideas, on how to bring the NHS back on to its feet.
I do not think that it helps—and I am sorry to say this in his absence—for the Secretary of State to choose to assume that these problems do not exist. We have said this to the Secretary of State before. In January this year he did enormous damage to his credibility and to the credibility of the Government when on a major television programme he said that there was no such thing as long waits for investigation, and that if there were cases waiting more than five months he would like to hear about them. They are commonplace.
It was shortly after that that we heard that, for example, in my area, 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of cases are having to wait over a month as a routine for urgent investigations.
I refer to a passage in Hansard, when the Secretary of State said that, by referring to widespread industrial unrest in the National Health Service, I was "trouble-making". Surely it is not trouble-making to say to the Minister ultimately responsible "We have this situation today. We know that it is going on. What are you, the Minister in charge, prepared to do about it?" That is not trouble-making. That, I suggest, is reality.
I have referred to the Minister the comments of Miss Catherine Hall, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. She is a most cautious woman, a most moderate woman by any standards. Yet she had to say the other day that the standards of nursing care in this country had now fallen dangerously low and that we had hit the lowest level ever of morale in the nursing profession. I know that the same applies in the medical profession.

Mr. William Hamilton: Not true.

Dr. Vaughan: That is what she said. That is what the nurses tell us.

Mr. Hamilton: It is not true.

Dr. Vaughan: That is what the doctors say. The hon. Gentleman does not want to believe it is true because it does not fit in with his doctrine.

Mr. Hamilton: It fits in with yours.

Dr. Vaughan: Why not have a nonparty approach to this disastrous situation?
This week we are asked to celebrate what appears to most of us a rather sick farce-30 years of the National Health Service. I think it is ludicrous. After four and a half years of Socialist management, or mismanagement, the situation is the worst that we have ever known. That celebration is nothing more than a publicity exercise which has backfired on the Government. Now they can neither cancel it, because it is inappropriate, nor go ahead with it realistically and sensibly.
As my right hon. Friend said, the centrepiece of this week has gone. It was to have been the announcement of a code of practice—a kind of non-medical Hippocratic oath. It was to have been the beginning of a new era in the NHS. Apparently, only the nurses are prepared to sign. We believe not only that a code of practice is essential in health but that it can be achieved.
Our advice to the Government is that they should continue—I hope that they will do so seriously—with their discussions on this matter. They should take more notice of the words of people actually working with patients. Some of the speakers at the COHSE conference were clearly unaware of what is going on—

Mr. William Hamilton: Practising nurses? How can the hon. Member honestly say that?

Dr. Vaughan: What about the porter at Greenwich who said on television the other day that there was a need for proper decisions to be made in the NHS, that lie was seeking proper orders and instructions about what to do because there was so much confusion?
The Secretary of State should use his influence to stop the unions turning, for example, on the Royal College of Nursing, attempting to deny it negotiating rights on behalf of its members. That kind of inter-staff warfare will do nothing for the NHS and will damage still further the care of patients. The nurses will resent that. We understand their feelings and we support them.
The Secretary of State should listen much more to what we are saying, and should accept our view that the NHS

will not function unless decisions can be made locally, quickly and easily once again. He should accept that we want to restore the NHS as much as he does, that we want a service which is in touch again with the needs of patients and with the local community.
I suggest four steps that the right lion. Gentleman should take. First, we should like him to condemn over and over again any kind of strike action within the NHS. We have condemned it by junior doctors and consultants, we condemned it by dentists and we condemn it by porters, telephonists and all the other staffs. In our view, there is no place for militant action in the care of the sick. We believe that today we need a kind of Hippocratic oath not just for doctors but for everyone working in health care.
Secondly, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to continue much more forcefully than he has so far with his attempts to draw up a proper code of behaviour.
Thirdly, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that professional groups such as nurses have a right to take part in consultations and to speak out firmly and clearly on their behalf to say that he will have no truck with inter-union strife, by which they want to bully the nurses out of the negotiating table, room and the conference hall.

Mr. Pavitt: The Royal College is represented on the Whitley Council and there is no pressure for change there.

Dr. Vaughan: They are trying to get rid of them. The hon. Member should know that if he reads the papers.
Finally, we would ask the Government to make it possible once again for professional staff in hospitals to get on with the job for which they are trained. That means fewer committees, less interference on all sides and a simplification of the administrative structure.
To say that we introduced that structure is no answer, because the Government have had four-and-a-half years to change it. What do they intend to do about the breakdown in the NHS? They are the people responsible for it at the moment. I ask them not only to be aware of and to admit the problems but to tell us what they will do about them. The whole situation is now desperately urgent.

6.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I should first like to thank all those hon. Members who have wished the Secretary of State well in his treatment in hospital and have added a wish for his speedy return to us. Naturally, I should like to associate myself and my hon. Friends with that sentiment.
We have had an interesting debate, although not all the subjects raised have been directly concerned with industrial relations in the National Health Service, which I take it is the purpose of this debate. However, I shall do my best to answer most of the industrial relations points and the other points so far as they relate to industrial relations.
I want to dispose of one subject immediately—the organisation of the NHS. It is no use the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) saying that we are trying to dodge the issue when we talk about the Tory reorganisation. We have tried to repair the damage with which we were left—not just by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) but by all his colleagues in government. It was right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen opposite who imposed the present organisation on the NHS. It is we who have had to try to struggle with the problems they left us.
The hon. Member for Reading, South spoke about decisions being made locally, quickly and easily. One reason that that is difficult to achieve in the present-day Health Service is that he and his right hon. Friends imposed on the service the existing bureaucratic structure. It is no use Tory Members giving us advice on what should be done with the NHS for the future, because there is no subject on which the Tory Party so lacks credibility in the country as their comments about the future organisation of the NHS. They have forfeited any claims to expertise by allowing the proof of their pudding to be eaten.

Dr. Vaughan: What have you done?

Mr. Moyle: What we have done, among a number of short term palliative measures—including restricting the numbers of managers, holding back management costs and amalgamating districts into single district areas—is to set up the

Royal Commission on the National Health Service, so that we shall have a good, sound, properly informed basis for reorganising the NHS. When we do so, we shall not make the mistake that the Tories made of imposing a D-day on the NHS by which all the troops had to march off to their new positions. Change when it comes will come at a pace which can be absorbed by the NHS. That is the lesson that we have learned.
In the meantime, I see that the Tories have not lost their desire to fly by the seat of their pants. That is the trouble with making suggestions about abolishing various parts of the NHS instead of waiting for proper advice. My advice to them is to wait for the Royal Commission, follow it through and take part in the debate then.
But all this is largely irrelevant to the subject of the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was not I who raised the matter first, and I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Reading, South to answer all the points which had been raised. I am now doing so.
The problem that we are discussing is industrial relations in the NHS. I think that we can all agree on one proposition anyway—that any dispute in the NHS is bound to call into question to a greater or lesser extent the interests of patients. Regrettably, disputes do occur in the ranks in the NHS. I had hoped that we could devote most of this afternoon's debate not to a rehearsal of grievances, which is what many of the contributions of the Opposition have amounted to, but to trying to sort out workable solutions to the problems under discussion.
First, we ought to look at the facts and get the whole problem into perspective. The NHS costs £6 billion per annum and employs 1 million staff. About three-quarters of that sum of £6 billion is spent on the staff, and that covers a wide range of professions and trades. Good industrial relations are essential in an organisation of this sort, because it is extremely labour-intensive, as I have said, and the quality of service to the patient depends on harmonious co-operation between a tremendous range of professions, crafts and occupations. It is a large and diverse work force in which there has to be cooperation between the various sections. It is an organisation that is probably


more complex and less homogeneous than almost any other organisation of comparable size, certainly in this country, and probably in most others too.
A patient can be affected by industrial action on the part of any of those staff groups—whether doctors or ancillaries—or by a dispute between different staff groups, and sometimes they can he affected by industrial action by workers outside the NHS which disrupts services to patients. The NHS is particularly vulnerable to the latter kind of disruption because by its very nature, it spreads to every geographical corner of the country.
In recent months we have heard a great deal about the industrial relations climate in the NHS, and we have heard a great deal about it from the Opposition Benches this afternoon. A lot of evidence has been produced to support particular theories of industrial relations. Most of the evidence that has been adduced by the Opposition has been anecdotal. The only way in which people can judge the state of industrial relations in the NHS is by looking at the overall statistics. They are the most reliable measure.
Department of Employment figures for 1976 show that the amount of time lost through industrial action in the NHS was less than the equivalent of 10 minutes for each member of staff over the whole year. As far as I am concerned, that is 10 minutes too much, but nevertheless that puts into perspective the tale of doom and woe that we have heard from Opposition Members today. In addition, the NHS has a long tradition of Whitley-ism, that is, negotiation through established machinery and joint resolution of its general problems by a process of negotiation and discussion between employers and unions.
The figures also show that there was a change in the type of industrial relations disruption that we have been experiencing in recent years, and this is important for what I want to say later. In 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 a large number of NHS staff were involved in national action, stoppages and disruption over pay and related matters—general terms and conditions of service. In recent years there have tended to be more stoppages involving fewer staff.
That was the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for

Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in his brief intervention when he drew attention to the fact that many of the disputes that have hit the newspaper headlines recently have involved specific local issues—very often issues which have probably been unwisely pursued—directly related to what employees of the NHS have thought was a better way of providing health care than the way they were being asked to follow. This suggests that recent industrial action has resulted from specific local action issues where the scope for remedial action is at local rather than national level, and this is important.

Mr. Hodgson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moyle: No.
That has to govern the nature of the solution of the problems; and I shall return to this matter of the localisation of issues when I talk about our hopes for improvement. After all, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) asked what the Government intended to do about this matter. I share my right hon. Friend's concern about the effect on patients of stoppages by all types of staff in the employment of the NHS. My right hon. Friend has over and over again emphasised his disquiet about the results of such actions, and I do not wish in any way to detract from anything that he has said.
We deprecate industrial action in the National Health Service which might endanger the care and safety of patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) asked for statistics of how many patients might have been killed or died as a result of industrial action. I know of no case where that has happened, although I confess that there have been times when a great deal of worry has been caused.
We recognise the right of any National Health Service employee—and, indeed, of any employee anywhere else—to be able to air his legitimate grievances, and in an organisation of the complexity and size of the NHS the desire to do so is bound to occur from time to time. It is true that grievances and complaints have not always been dealt with as effectively as they might have been in the past. On going round the NHS I have been very disturbed to see in many cases either the breakdown or the total absence of


arrangements for joint consultation between management and staff at local level. There are, of course, many exceptions. In some localities the arrangements are working remarkably well, but there has been a tendency for all negotiations to be centralised at national level, and there has been a tendency on the part of some managements at local level, either through inadvertence or through general resistance to modern trends, to carry out the sort of joint consultation that there ought to be.
I have no doubt that when it comes to the resulting industrial unrest many employees in the NHS, as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said, are dedicated people who share the general apprehension about the damage being done to patients. In fact, that is true of the overwhelming majority of employees in the NHS. If one takes a historical look at the NHS, one cannot deduce from the rates of pay prevalent in the service that the unions have exploited their undoubted power to look after themselves and not look after patients. I believe that the leadership of the affiliated TUC unions and many other professional bodies and associations in the NHS is ready to say that sort of thing.

Mr. Onslow: If one looks at the history of the NHS, one would not say that it was marked by the fact that prospective patients were denied admission to hospital because of action by the unions. This is a new and disturbing development. Can the Minister tell me specifically why his answer to my Question the other day was so inaccurate?

Mr. Moyle: If we are talking about the answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, we have to get it into perspective. The hon. Gentleman quoted about three dozen hospitals where admissions are restricted. That is three dozen too many, but it is 36 out of 2,600. That is why I say that most of the evidence which the Opposition has adduced this afternoon has been entirely anecdotal and local, and it is this local issue which is the most important matter that we have to discuss.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is in grave danger of misleading the House.

I quoted nothing. The statistics came from the Minister. I want to know why the answer that I received was so misleading. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to mislead the House and if he is thought to have done so I hope he will explain why the answer took the form that it did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpem): As the hon. Gentleman says, the Minister may mislead the House. He has not misled it so far.

Mr. Moyle: I have said that I think that most of the TUC affiliated unions and many of the professional associations in the Health Service are willing to say that they will work on the principle that patients' interests come first. It is very important that in return—this was the point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch)—the employees in the Health Service must be sure that their willingness to devote themselves to their patients will not be used against them.
The change of atmosphere in the Health Service possibly occurred during the ancillary workers' strike in about 1972–73, when ancillary workers, rightly or wrongly, came to the conclusion that their unwillingness to harm their patients was being used against them by the Government of that time to break an industrial claim which would have breached that Government's pay policy. I think that it was then that the worm entered the bud of the NHS. That is a valuable lesson that we should all take on board.
We must not exploit the willingness of NHS workers to dedicate themselves to the care of their patients. This lesson will guide my right hon. Friend and myself in the time to come.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I said in my speech that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of NUPE, and I believe a NUPE-sponsored Member. I quoted the interview with Alan Fisher in which he said that the patients were not the unions' first consideration, that their first consideration was the pay and conditions of staff. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that he will try to persuade the leaders of the unions that that is not the right attitude, and that patients must be their first consideration?

Mr. Moyle: We have been engaged in an exercise of that sort for some weeks. It is by no means a new departure. If the right hon. Gentleman will possess himself in patience for just a little while, I shall explain what we shall do in this matter.
When industrial action has taken place, health authorities have so far succeeded in maintaining essential services to patients. I am confident that they will continue to do so in such conditions, but what is needed now is a move towards dealing with these problems before they reach a stage at which patients will be affected.
It is not only the Government and employing health authorities that are concerned to improve matters. I find that the health professions and the trade unions, without exception, are equally anxious to find the solutions.
First, as the House knows, my right hon. Friend has been engaged in discussions with representatives of the main NHS professions and unions, discussions which are aimed at improving the industrial relations climate and in particular at safeguarding patients. I think that within the next day or two those discussions will come to fruition. It will not be as complete fruition as I should have liked—I grant Opposition Members that —but a substantial measure of agreement will be reached with most organisations.
Clearly, I cannot say what is in the document that is to be issued before it is issued. There is no doubt that trade unions are concerned to make sure that the good will of employees in the NHS is not exploited and to ensure that proper resources are provided for the NHS. I know that they are also anxious to ensure that the idea that patients should be given first priority is seen to be important, a matter which should receive particular attention this week, when we are all not only looking at the past 30 years of the NHS but are looking forward to the next 30 years.

Mr. Pavitt: Has my right hon. Friend set a term for the time in which the document to which he has referred will be discussed by the other side of the Whitley Council? Is there a set date?

Mr. Moyle: No set date has yet been decided on, but these matters will be considered by the Whitley Council.
Many of our recent problems have had local causes, requiring local solutions. The general declaration of principles for the future of the NHS will be followed up. In many cases industrial action might have been avoided if there had been adequate local machinery for dealing with points at issue quickly, before they reached a disruptive stage.
I apologise for not having been present when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) was making that pertinent point. There is nothing more frustrating than for someone to feel that he has a genuine grievance but no way of getting a fair hearing in a reasonable time. Delay of itself can lead to industrial action.
Whereas on matters of pay and terms and conditions of service there is a national Whitley machinery, which by and large for most of the time the NHS has been in existence has provided a solution to those problems, many matters lie outside the Whitley machinery. If a local appeals machinery and local disputes procedure could be implemented, they would lead to a ready solution of such problems. Although I do not want to comment in any detail on the problem, I think that the dispute at the West London Hospital is a typical example of what I have in mind.
When we came to power and took over the NHS in 1974, we took stock of the situation. We came to the conclusion that there were great gaps, particularly in local consultation and in some ways in which the employers' side of the Whitley Council was constructed. Therefore, we asked Lord McCarthy, who is one of the leading industrial relations experts in the country, to look into the whole machinery of negotiation and consultation in the NHS.
We have already reformed the management sides of the Whitley machinery to make sure that they are more responsive. We are quite clear that these reforms have a vital role to play.
We shall carry on a continuing dialogue on such matters with the staff side of the Whitley Council. Discussions are also in train under this general approach on the improvement of joint consultative machinery and on procedures and appeals in relation to disciplinary action and redundancy and retirement procedures.
What about the longer term in the NHS? We have been actively encouraging the development of the personnel function in the NHS. Since reorganisation—and this is a benefit of reorganisation—personnel officers have for the first time been appointed in the Health Service. We are making sure that they gain the appropriate experience and the appropriate training. They are undergoing a series of intensive industrial relations courses mounted to make sure that their contribution is even more effective.
We are taking steps at the same time to improve our arrangements for monitoring the industrial relations climate in the NHS in order that we may identify trends which suggest scope for remedial action at an early stage.
At all levels, locally and centrally, there is still a great deal of work to be done in the NHS. I believe that we are in the process of making slow, steady, significant improvements. I hope that this week's activities will ensure that all those in the NHS will rededicate themselves to the idea that the patients' interests are the paramount concern in the Health Service, and that we shall all act on that basis.
Of course, this is a two-way business between management and unions. It is therefore very distressing that Conservative Members can speak as some of them have spoken today. For example, I took down the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) who said "When unions ask for bashing, it is a cowardly politician who does not bash them." That statement was made with great relish and enthusiasm. Whereas the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford and his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South I think mounted the debate with the idea that we might have a philosophical discussion about the future of industrial relations in the NHS, contributions such as the hon. Lady's are of no help. I notice that she adheres to what she said.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman should read what I said.

Mr. Moyle: I took down what the hon. lady said word for word as she uttered those words. I do not think that I have misquoted her. It was the sort of contribution that too many on the trade union

side of industrial relations feel is typical of the attitude of Conservative Members. That attitude will contribute more towards worsening industrial relations in the NHS than almost any other contribution I could think of.
Against this background, it is important to go through the points made by the hon. Member for Reading, South. He called for professional groups to be allowed to negotiate practically daily on their terms and conditions of service with the NHS management. Nurses are involved in daily negotiations. They have seats on the Whitley Council.

Dr. Vaughan: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that nurses are not turned out of the negotiating room?

Mr. Moyle: Of course I will. There is no problem with this. Nurses are on the Whitley Council as of right. There is no attempt to ask the nurses to leave. I cannot understand how remarks of that sort can be made by the hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to be an Opposition spokesman on this subject.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the Minister know that in hospital after hospital across the country there are joint consultative committees where TUC affiliated unions are refusing to sit down with representatives of organisations not so affiliated? Does the Minister support that or is he now prepared to use his influence to tell these TUC affiliated unions that they must sit down with all the organisations and negotiate jointly?

Mr. Moyle: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention serves to show the degree of ignorance, which he shares with the whole of his party, on the subject of industrial relations. I have been talking about joint negotiations and the comments made on them by the hon. Member for Reading, South. With joint negotiation, there is no doubt that nurses are on the Whitley Council as of right and negotiate on behalf of those they represent. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford is talking about joint consultation, which is an entirely different, local, matter. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend cannot distinguish between joint consultation and joint negotiation in industrial relations, they are losing a great deal of ground. They are not grasping the problems.
When it comes to joint consultation, the management of the Health Service will talk to any representative body to discover the views of that body and incorporate them into its policy. The intervention by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member shows their degree of misunderstanding of the industrial relations set-up in the Health Service. I hope that they will soon inform themselves about the correct position.
The hon. Member for Reading, South asked me to condemn strike action. I have supported the Secretary of State in all his statements in that respect. The hon. Gentleman called for a code of behaviour. I hope that this week substantial steps will be taken in that direction. As for allowing professional staff to get on with their job, I have already said that the most substantial obstacle to this is the organisation of the Health Service and I do not propose to rehearse what I have already said on that subject.
I welcome the opportunity which the debate has provided to air this subject because industrial relations is an important topic. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fights a passionate battle within the Cabinet for extra resources. Even during the darkest days he maintained a rate of real growth in the service. It was exempted from the International Monetary Fund cuts for the purposes of revenue expenditure. In September 1976 capital and revenue were increased. Capital was provided for the construction industry. In this Budget we got an extra £50 million. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will carry on fighting with effectiveness, if not necessarily always with venom.

Mr. James Tinn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND (RURAL PLANNING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

7.4 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the official Opposition for having made available to us the second half of this Supply Day. We are the more grateful because we know how extremely anxious they are to find time for discussing other subjects upon Supply, such as the question of New Commonwealth immigration and its consequences, which I know they have been trying for a long time, unsuccessfully, to fit in. We are the more in their debt on that account.
We have decided to use this opportunity for discussing the impact upon the pattern of rural society in Northern Ireland—that is, upon the predominant form of society in Northern Ireland—of a system of planning regulation. There is certainly no part of the United Kingdom where this subject is of more importance, not merely in its day-to-day-impact upon individuals and families but in its consequences for the future economy and the future society of the Province as a whole. The occasion is the more opportune because of the recent publication of a remarkable report, the report of the committee which was chaired by Dr. Cockcroft. This report, like so many documents tendered to or emanating from the government of Northern Ireland, has very properly been made available for general public study and comment. The latest date for the receipt of such comment is as far ahead as 30th September.
We do not feel that that is any reason why we should not debate this subject tonight on the Floor of the House. Quite apart from the fact that the House will be going up, presumably at the end of the month, and there will then be a long period during which this consultation period will come to an end when the House will not be sitting, this is not the kind of subject where one needs to wait breathlessly for the full total of comments to flow in before hon. Members are entitled to stress the important aspects and put forward their views.
We certainly do not regard a planning policy as something which is subject to sudden and dramatic jerks and developments. We want to see a smooth development, although a development, as I shall show, very different in its tendencies and in its spirit from that which has characterised most of the last five years. We feel no inhibition whatever in opening up this subject and putting forward our views upon it.
Anyone who as an observer—I might even say as a lover—of the English countryside goes to Ulster, either as a visitor or more permanently, is bound to be struck by the contrast between the two patterns, the English pattern and the Ulster pattern. Instead of the sharply demarcated village system characteristic of England and the wide areas almost without human habitation—not merely in the wilder parts but in the rural and arable areas—the visitor to Northern Ireland is rarely out of sight of human habitation. In the fastnesses of the Mourne Mountains in my constituency he has to chose his position carefully if he is to look through 360 degrees and find his eyes not met by at least one habitation. This characteristic is deeply embedded in the economic and social history of the North-East of the island of Ireland and it has not only placed its mark upon the people; it endows them with certain advantages which are not enjoyed by the inhabitants of other parts of the United Kingdom. They are particular advantages which we do not wish to see diminished or destroyed by an unwise or an insensitive application of planning legislation.
In the rest of the kingdom, particularly in England, industrialisation has meant the denuding of the country, and it has often meant or threatened the death of the rural, the village, community. The lifestyle has been totally altered in the rest of the kingdom by the process of industrialisation. One may say that that goes as much for the new industrial revolution as for the old. No such threat need be posed to Northern Ireland by the industrial development and the economic advance to which we look forward.
It is true that, as the years go by, a lower proportion of the total population will necessarily be engaged in agriculture. That is the counterpart of the increasing

efficiency, in which Ulster has not been behind hand compared with the rest of the country. But whereas elsewhere the decline of employment in agriculture tends to mean the denuding and impoverishment of the country, that is not so, or it need not be so, in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, both industry can come to the country and the country dweller can go to industry. I would like to look for a moment at these two sides of the equation. They were both referred to in the evidence given to the Cockcroft committee on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, which said:
The development of industry in the district towns and, to a lesser extent, in the villages could assist in the improvement of farm structure by providing alternative employment opportunities to small farmers and their families, many of whom will wish to remain domiciled in the countryside.
So, on the one side, there is virtually no part of Northern Ireland to which suitable industry is inappropriate, and that siting of industry—and not only or not exclusively rural and ancillary industry—widespread over the Province means that farming families and the farming community's particular patterns of life and habitation need not be broken up by the shift from agriculture to non-agricultural, industrial or service employment.
On the other hand, so small is the Province in size—and I must say so excellent, certainly compared with much of England and Wales, are the communications—that in most parts it is perfectly practicable for the younger generation, or one part of a family, while living in or near the family home, the farmstead around which the family has centred for generations, to travel daily to a place of work in the industrial centres of the Province. I take a statement from the report to that effect:
…the preference of rural dwellers to preserve their rural community connections and identity even though they may choose to work in urban centres thus preventing an ageing and rapidly dwindling rural population.
So the unique pattern of settlement—I have sometimes been so injudicious as to describe it as the pepperpot method of settlement—of Northern Ireland, which so strikingly confronts the observer, is a potential source of strength, elasticity and resilience to the economy and the society of Northern Ireland, and it is that which we wish to see not merely uninjured but


preserved and built up by a proper application of planning policy.
We could not be better guided in that direction than by the report of the Cockcroft committee, which really is an exceptionally excellent document, forthright in its statements, refreshingly literary in its language, and a document which certainly pulls no punches and owes no respect to any vested interests or current theories. We congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on setting it up only just a year ago, and his action in doing so, I noticed, was acknowledged by the committee itself in conferring upon him a Privy Councillorship. We congratulate the committee even more upon the work that it has brought out.
So good is this report that one has to fight hard against the temptation to over-quote. There is hardly a paragraph in it which does not contain at least one really good quote, but I shall endeavour to ration myself to some of the key statements of the Cockcroft committee.
I begin with the indictment in the report of the existing failings of planning policy, although perhaps I should say at this stage that in nothing I shall say, and in nothing, I think, that my hon. Friends will say, do we imply that during the last four or five years there has been no change or development. On the contrary, I know that the Minister himself has taken a personal interest in introducing more flexibility into the planning rules-of-thumb which were being applied, and I have reason to be grateful to him personally for the attention he has given to individual cases from my constituency which exemplified only too harshly the consequences of rigid rules of planning imported from an English context and applied in Northern Ireland.
The Cockcroft committee said:
We are satisfied from the evidence presented that there is a reluctance on the part of the policy makers to accept anything other than the strictest proof of necessity to live in the countryside as good reason for obtaining planning permission.
Do we not know it? Do we not, from our constituents, know perfectly well the hoops they are made to jump through in order to establish the basic, prima facie right to live in the countryside. The report continues:
This intransigence ignores the social structures and settlement patterns peculiar to

Northern Ireland, where there is a centuries-old rural tradition of living in a scattered pattern of loosely grouped and isolated dwellings which, nevertheless, form identifiable communities based on parishes and townlands and woven together by kinship groupings. By the same token, systems of land tenure have not been taken into account.
I think that the word "intransigence" which the committee uses there is a singularly apt term with which to describe the rigidities of a good deal of planning policy hitherto.
I turn to another statement, in paragraph 26, which says:
We must record that evidence presented to us has overwhelmingly indicated that the policy is forcing the disintegration of rural communities with the consequent loss of social stability and declining use of earlier investment in churches, schools, halls, roads, water and other services; in short, the result of the rigid application of the rural planning policy is seen a; a depopulated countryside scattered with abandoned buildings and derelict dwellings.
That could hardly be put more forcibly or, indeed, more accurately.
My last heading from the indictment as framed by the report is from paragraph 37. I quote only one sentence, for it is a subject to which I intend to return.
The Committee does not accept that the rural planning policy is administered in a sympathetic and understanding manner.
I dare say that my hon. Friends, like myself, when they read that sentence, murmured "You can say that again".
Within the compass of this limited debate, I can only pick out what seemed to me to be some of the major proposals for the adaptation of planning policy to the rural pattern as it is in Northern Ireland. I pick them out from the report not to indicate that by any means these are the only important recommendations but to indicate that they are among those with which hon. Members dealing with their constituents, and watching the development in their own areas, have become distressingly familiar.
The first is the "infilling" rule. That is a term of art which is not unfamiliar in other parts of the United Kingdom—that one can build a house in a rural area provided that one can satisfy the planning authority that it is infilling. But "infilling" is defined in the present policy note as:
a small gap in a substantial and closely built-up frontage allowing at most for two dwellings".


We associate ourselves with the comment of the committee upon that, which was:
We find it difficult to comprehend the rationale behind the definition and we consider that it should be relaxed".
In the length and breadth of Northern Ireland everyone can find areas where evidently, without any damage to the pattern of the area or to any consideration of agriculture or amenity, a great deal more than space for two dwellings in a closely built-up frontage represents in the normal and natural sense of the term "infilling". Therefore, the first point we would make is that the whole concept of infilling in planning policy has to be thought through again against the background of the actual rural pattern in Northern Ireland.
Then there is the use of old sites. Again, I quote from the report on this subject. In the passage which I quoted earlier, which drew attention to the depopulation and the scatter of derelict, decaying buildings, which could result from a mistaken planning policy, the committee continues:
Such buildings are already increasing in number yet their siting is generally admirable, rarely on skylines, usually sheltered and surrounded by mature trees and hedges, and with access along hedge lines. We recognise that in some instances there may be sound reasons against replacing dwellings on existing sites, but it has been strongly put to us that the… restrictions
—as at present applied—
are not acceptable".
I doubt whether more than a week or two goes past before I am confronted in South Down with the proposition that the permission to develop a new dwelling on an old site has for one reason or another been turned down. Indeed, the Minister has before him a particular case which is at present in my mind's eye. It is a site below the brow of a hill on a descending slope. It is surrounded, as the committee says, by mature trees. There are two old buildings on the site which could be worked into a new pattern, and there is a perfectly safe and suitable access to the adjacent road which could be contrived, avoiding all possibility of road danger. One could not imagine a more suitable site, not for new development but for redevelopment.
That one of the sons of the farmer higher up the hill should wish to build

for himself a house on that site is surely devoutly to be desired. His application had been turned down out of hand. But I have good hope that with the flexibility of mind which the Minister personally has often shown, that decision will not be upheld. I quote that case as an illustration of the way in which one of the great assets of the Northern Ireland countryside is being deliberately neglected.
The existing sites of former settlements or dwellings which are ideal from every possible point of view for renewed occupation, and very often renewed occupation by those who are related to the people who work the soil in the neighbourhood, are something on which we should like to see a change of emphasis. Indeed, we should like to see the onus shifted the opposite way. The onus should be on the planning authority to explain why a former site is not now suitable for a dwelling house.
Then there is the attitude towards industries in the countryside. No serious thought seems to have been given to industrial planning in the countryside as opposed to planning for residence. The committee has certainly made an important point in saying that this has to be considered in its own right. In the words of the report, we believe that
The need to foster agriculturally related industry in the countryside has been disregarded.
Those are strong words to find used of a planning authority in a predominantly rural province such as Northern Ireland, but they are not a whit short of the truth. The presumption ought to be in favour of the would-be developer of an agriculturally oriented industry in the deep rural parts of Northern Ireland. Everyone comes across the small factory, very often closely knit with the agriculture of the neighbourhood, which is both socially and developmentally an asset to the neighbourhood. But, on the whole, the attitude has been the rule-of-thumb—"Industrial development? Put it in the urban areas. Put it in the areas which are zoned for industry". This concept of zoning, which in England we have grown up with over two generations, is really not applicable, or at least not applicable until it is transformed out of recognition to the circumstances of Northern Ireland


I turn to the point about the over-rigidity in insisting upon avoiding waste in the supply of services. On that subject, the committee is again excellent. Of course, we all know the argument. It is essentially an English argument. "Put the houses where the services can be cheaply provided". That is one of the guiding lights of rule-of-thumb planning policy on this side of the water, but hear what the committee has to say:
The argument for economy does not take into account the existence of a widespread service infrastructure in rural areas, and an investigation is clearly required into the comparison of direct costs in the provision and maintenance of services in dispersed rural communities with the level of public finance needed to create additional urban housing.
After that, the committee achieves a statement for which I have waited for donkeys' years. It says, "but after all we do not need to assume the full range in urban terms of services in order to be justified in permitting development"—and here comes the sentence:
the owner-occupier's…freedom of choice to live without full social facilities should he so wish".
Hurrah, hurrah! We have been waiting for someone to say that; for after all, the man who was prepared to build himself a house, and choose for his reasons where he wanted to live, was entitled to accept that in that area some amenities indeed might not be available, but he had made his choice and knew what he was doing. It is unrealistic in the circumstances of Northern Ireland to work upon the calculus from the cost of services which is perfectly applicable to urban developments in England.
Noticeability is the next point. This is what is said about noticeability:
the 'noticeability' of a house is irrelevant; that it is necessary and enhances the environment is most pertinent.
The planning authority under planning rules that prevail at the moment—unless one can personally secure some attention to the realities on the ground—go by the rule-of-thumb that if a house will stick out, one cannot build it. Of course I agree that there are many circumstances in which it is far better to site a house below the skyline rather than on the skyline, but the traveller through Northern Ireland finds many houses that are extremely prominent and do stand out against the countryside, but these are

necessary and they enhance the environment. There are many houses, deliberately painted in that typically Ulster shade of ochre, which stand out for miles, yet no one would say that these houses were a desecration of the hillside or the country in which they sit. They belong to it, are part of it and give it its character.
That is not true just of the older houses, the Georgian houses, the houses with the Dublin front doors. It is equally true of many of the well-designed houses which have been built in recent years and which are still being built. Therefore, let us get rid of the rule-of-thumb that if it is noticeable one cannot do it. That is not the rule by which to control developments in the Ulster countryside.
I have already said something about rural and agricultural industries and their place in the country pattern. I hope that the Minister will see that particular attention is given to the chapter on industrial and commercial developments, and particularly to the suggestion again to dispense with the rule-of-thumb that were there are fewer than 10 employees one does not bother about them, that the Department of Commerce should be brought into the picture and into the consultations only when a planned industrial development will give employment for at least 10 people. The report says that if a development will give employment for one extra person it is worth consideration in its own right. I hope that that is one of the many recommendations of this committee that will be adopted.
I come to the last of the list of recommendations that I have selected. It concerns buildings dedicated to tourism. I was particularly delighted when I read paragraph 60 of the report on that subject. I had been explaining to the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill that in Northern Ireland the definition of the size of the number of bedrooms of a building appropriate and required for the development of tourism was often very much smaller and the site very different from that which would be expected in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board stressed to the committee
that since it is a statutory body with specialist expertise it should, as of right, be consulted by the planners about any potential tourist project


or any development that could adversely affect the tourist industry".
The Tourist Board has been particularly keen that the provision of new accommodation, even in small units, in the deep rural areas of Northern Ireland should not be hampered, because it fits the pattern both of the country and the wishes of those who enjoy that kind of country.
I shall not lengthen the very selective list of points to be noted—points that I hope will be accepted and implemented in due course—that I have culled from the report.
I turn finally to administration. I have already quoted the damning sentence from the committee on administration:
The committee does not accept that rural planning policy is administered in a sympathetic and understanding manner.
The report goes on with very wise words:
the advent of bureaucracy has alienated many of those involved in, or affected by, planning decisions. It is our view that this sense of alienation must he removed.
That will come as no surprise to Northern Ireland Members. It is our view that the sense of alienation should be removed. We believe that in this we shall have the sympathy of the Secretary of State himself and the Northern Ireland Office generally.
In the end there is only one way to remove alienation which is caused by bureaucracy. That is by subordinating the bureaucracy to those who are democratically elected and responsible. I deliberately say "and responsible". Merely to take an elected person and put him on a board is not democracy. He may be an elected person in another context but he is not elected when he is put on the board. He is an appointee, just as much as anybody else. True, he may be in touch with what his colleagues on his elected body are thinking, but when he is on the board he is not there as a responsible representative. He does not have to go back individually to those who sent him there and explain what he has done.
This is where there is scope for utilising and developing local government in Northern Ireland. This should appeal to the Secretary of State, who told the House last Friday that he would see whether the right principles are being properly applied in the allocation of functions and

responsibilities between the district councils and the regional government.
Planning is one area in which they are not properly applied. It is an area in which the bureaucracy has too much and the district councils too little. Indeed, that is an exaggeration, because the bureaucracy has it all. The district councils are in a purely consultative, non-responsible and non-representative role.

Rev. Ian Paisley: They are just informed.

Mr. Powell: Yes, they are just informed. That is another and very common meaning of the word "consultation".
That brings me to perhaps my only serious disagreement with the report. The report says that
there should be a statutory requirement for the Department to recognise that councillors should have more than a consultative role".
We would agree with that. Indeed, we would say that in the detailed local application of planning policy the councils should be given a responsible, executive role. After all, there is plenty of safeguard. There is an appeal procedure. If the Minister does not like it, he can provide himself with an appeal procedure if he wishes to do so. But the executive power of detailed application—if we are to get away from bureaucracy and undo the alienation—must belong to the councils themselves.
Therefore we disagree with the proposal in the report to give the councils an appeal function. I do not believe that it is the natural function of elected bodies to sit upon appeals. Their natural function is to do. If there is to be an appeal, then we wish to take it a little further away and give it to a different sort of body. The elected body should be doing the initial deciding.
In this one respect the committee was misled. It says in paragraph 4:
Councillors did not express to us any desire to assume the planning responsibilities of their predecessors prior to 1973, since planning decisions often led to divisions, dissension and allegations of sectarianism.
I would be the first to agree that the district councils can only play a subordinate function in planning, in the sense that the general pattern of planning and the overall rules must be decided on a scale for the Province as a whole. But


I do not know where the Committee went if it found councils that did not think they were fit to deal with the detailed application of planning policy in their own areas. As for
divisions, dissension and allegations of sectarianism",
what are elective councils for but to debate and decide matters which may be the subject of controversy? If they take a decision which in the view of the Secretary of State is contrary to general policy or a decision regarded as oppressive by the subject, he has his recourse by way of appeal.
I hope that this report, and in its way this debate, will not only bring about much more rapid process in the adaptation of planning to what Northern Ireland is and should remain in the future but will help in the task which I know the Secretary of State has set himself—namely, the re-democratisation of government in Northern Ireland. I refer to the bringing back of government to the understanding, control, sympathy and support of the people themselves.

7.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I wish to welcome to the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates). I understand that it is his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box. He comes to this debate with considerable knowledge and experience of affairs in Northern Ireland. Therefore, he is no stranger to us.
I do not propose to make a long speech, and I shall certainly not make a controversial speech. The Cockcroft report is now before the people of Northern Ireland and is being considered by local authorities and political parties. Therefore, in this debate I wish to say nothing that will in any way prejudice the outcome of discussions. Although the report has been published, I am sure that many people think that there are still further contributions to be made. Indeed, this debate illustrates that hon. Members have points to make, as I am sure we shall soon discover in this debate.
I do not think that we can have too much discussion of the subject of rural planning in Northern Ireland. It is a controversial subject and since I have

visited 26 councils in Northern Ireland I can only say that, if one leaves Belfast out of the picture, the other 25 have a very great deal to say about rural planning.
I hope to have the opportunity at the end of the debate to reply to any points made about broad policy and to make a few comments of a philosophical nature. I have some general thoughts to give the House on the subject of planning. It is an area of activity in which I have been involved for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has a great deal in common with me. My first appointment in the world of representative politics and government was on the East Hampstead rural district council, and my hon. Friend and I served together on a planning committee, which often sat until three or four o'clock in the morning in that small council in Berkshire. Therefore, I was well aware long before I went to the Northern Ireland Office that planning was an important subject for those who live in rural areas.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for raising the subject of rural planning in a helpful and constructive manner. He has mentioned the recently published report of the committee which I set up last May to examine and make recommendations on our present policies for the control and development of the countryside. I should like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Cockcroft, the chairman, and his committee for producing within 12 months this comprehensive and useful report on a most difficult and sensitive subject.
The committee has made a number of detailed recommendations, which seem to fall into two main categories. The first group of recommendations refers to our policies on domestic housing and development in rural areas, and he and the committee urge the Department of Environment, the sole planning authority, to adopt a more flexible and sympathetic approach. The second group of recommendations refers to our policy on industrial and agricultural development, though once again the keynote is the need for flexibility.
I shall be giving all these recommendations careful consideration and, obviously, my officials will need time to study the


full implications of the recommendations. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the House last Friday, we must remain sensitive to the views and feelings of local people. Hence, I shall be inviting comments on this report from elected representatives such as hon. Members here this evening and from district councils, as well as from other interested organisations such as the Ulster Countryside Committee and the Royal Society of Ulster Architects and any other interested parties.
I have no doubt that hon. Members will be referring to these recommendations during the course of this evening's discussion, and I think it would help if I reminded the House of the basic aims of our rural planning policies to which these recommendations refer. Our rural planning policy is, of course, only one element, albeit an important one, in the whole physical planning strategy. The regional physical development strategy for Northern Ireland sets out clearly the Government's overall planning policies and objectives. It is a strategy designed to maximise economic growth, whilst taking into account social and environmental factors, and to ensure that all the people in Northern Ireland benefit from this industrial growth. We have decided that this aim can best be achieved by the regeneration of Belfast and the adoption of the district towns concept. Outside Belfast, the concentration of scarce investment and resources in district towns will make them more attractive to new industry and create improved social and environmental conditions.
However, I recognise that some growth will be necessary outside the district towns in the smaller county towns and villages. I accept that many people who have lived all their lives in rural areas are simply not prepared to move into a district town, whereas they may be prepared to move into smaller settlements which are still essentially rural in character. The regional strategy provides for this and stresses that services need to be maintained and provision made for some expansion to cater for the increased population in these small towns and villages. These are being identified by my Department as it continues with the preparation of area plans. Obviously, development of these settlements must depend

to a large extent on the employment opportunities available in the surrounding area and those nearest to the district towns are more favourably placed in this respect.
However, as Dr. Cockcroft's report has highlighted, it is the development outside these settlements which is causing the most controversy. Our aim is to complement the other aspects of the overall regional strategy, while recognising that individuals must have as much choice as possible about where they wish to live. We fully recognise that some people must live in the countryside outside any settlement. However, any applications for rural development must meet certain defined criteria as regards the amenity of the countryside, the loss of high quality agricultural land, ribbon development and urban sprawl. Moreover, the cost of the provision of services, and factors such as pollution problems and traffic hazards are all important elements that must be taken into account.
I am sure that hon. Members here tonight will agree that these are important factors and they would not wish to see a total free-for-all, without any form of control in these areas. Northern Ireland's rural environment is too great an asset to risk squandering in this way.
Subject only to good siting and design and any other land use considerations, the policy recognises that planning permission must normally be given to persons who need to live in the countryside because of the nature of their employment. In addition, sympathetic consideration is given to applicants who, because of special personal or domestic circumstances, require to live in rural areas. Apart from these personal circumstances, the present policy also permits building on suitable infill sites and replacement of existing dwellings which are readily capable of occupation.
In my view, these policies achieve a balance between the legitimate needs of some people who live and work in the countryside and the need to retain and preserve the rural environment. The report of Dr. Cockcroft's committee criticises the application of these policies as being inflexible. Unfortunately, it is impossible to please everybody. In the carrying out of any planning policy, some people will be refused planning permission and, naturally, they will be aggrieved.


If there were a particularly high number of people with grievances, I would accept that this would be a fair indication of inflexibility on our part. However, the latest figures show that roughly two-thirds of all applications for rural housing are approved and only one-third refused. These figures hardly indicate that the policies are being applied inflexibly. However, I would be the last person to argue that either our policies or their implementation are beyond criticism. It is for this reason that I have given the undertaking that we shall be studying the report carefully and entering into the widest possible consultations.
The Cockcroft committee has taken the first step in enabling me to undertake this comprehensive review, and I await with interest the comments of hon. Members tonight.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: As I represent East Belfast, which has an electorate of about 100,000, most of whom are engaged in industry and commerce, with a large number manning and servicing the machinery of bureaucracy, some people may wonder what is my interest in rural planning. But this is a matter that every hon. Member should take seriously. I could cite a number of minor constituency interests such as the wellbeing of the Lagan Valley and the development on the shoreline of Belfast Lough, but there is a much greater community interest centred round rural planning.
The Cockroft report is a most useful start to what I hope will emerge as much new thinking on a vital subject. Planning is a dirty word to most people and it is a neck and neck race whether economic planners or physical planners are the more resented. I believe that this is largely due to the insensitive attempts to direct people in ways that they do not immediately see the benefit of following.
I start my consideration of the report where my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) left off—the glaring omission of any comment on the machinery for administering planning law. My right hon. Friend referred to the part of the report that said that district councillors did not want planning powers returned to them. That may or may not be their view, but that is not the

point. The question is how we can best ad minister planning law.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hardly surprising that members of the present district councils were not fully alive to the possibilities, bearing in mind that their predecessors, to whom mistaken reference is made in the report, were not the old rural councils but the county councils which dealt with planning?

Mr. Craig: That is a valid point, and I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says.
The essential machinery for the effective operation of any planning law must involve three levels. The first, which touches people most, is the area level—what happens in their own locality. The second—the central level—has overall responsibility for working out the strategy and co-ordinating the life of the community as a whole. The third level, which has been lacking not only in Northern Ireland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom, is an independent appeal body acting in a judicial role. Far too often decisions involve a great deal of injustice and there is no effective remedy for the citizen.
Of course, all this involves some basic criteria being agreed for planning law. I am not sure that the terms of reference of the committee were adequate if they are deemed to be limited by the statutory requirements of the Department or are only those set out in the report, which refers to:


"(a) the statutory requirements imposed upon the Department;
(b) the social and economic objectives embodied in the Regional Development Strategy;
(c) the need for due economy in the pi o-vision of essential services;
(d) the protection of good quality agricultural land;
(e) likely trends in population growth, population movement and employment; and
(f) the interests and wishes of those who live in the countryside;"
They are all relevant and essential to a study to produce a modern code of planning law, but the crucial omission is that there is no reference to the right of the individual and the right of property ownership. Those rights touch upon the fundamental character of a democracy


and planning law impinges upon fundamental rights in terms of the individual and his ownership and use of property.
British law, and our concept of freedom, has always been jealous of these rights. Indeed, the Englishman used to boast that his home was his castle. I am not sure that Parliament has always guarded these interests with the zeal that one would expect. This is not only a British theme. It is an essential ingredient in the character of democracy throughout the free world.
The Government would do well to address their mind to the European Convention on Human Rights to which this nation subscribed. Article I of the first additional protocol to the convention states:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
In other words, if one wishes to deprive an individual of his possessions or to limit his use of them, one must establish clearly and beyond doubt that one is doing so in the general interest, or as a necessary process of protecting the rights of others. That is why I lay emphasis upon the need for at least three tiers of administration to ensure that the planning law works effectively.
The area level, in my opinion, is the one that will create the necessary climate for people to co-operate and accept planning as a useful part of day-to-day living. What the body should be is not easy to say in the situation that prevails in Northern Ireland. One would certainly expect the district council to be considered for that role. Indeed, I wonder what is the purpose of the district council if it has no effective say in controlling and shaping the environment and growth of the area which it is responsible.
What sort of councillor would be happy if he had no say as to where public sector housing was to go, or what quantity or quality of public sector housing was to be thrust into the environment for which he was held accountable by the electorate? Equally, the councillor would wish to be able to say what sort of private sector activity he wants and what scale and quality it should be. The

people who are paying rates to the district council expect that this should be so. After all, if one is to invest a substantial part of one's life and a substantial proportion of one's material goods in a place, one wants to be assured that one's investment will be protected, and that the activities of others will not throw away something that is crucially important to one as an individual. In all this, nothing can touch or improve upon an area body that is elected by the people who live in that area, whether it be a district council or something greater than a district council. An elected body is an essential ingredient.
The central authority is also crucially important and is also in trouble if it is not adequately answerable to the people, and to the electorate in particular. The central planning authority has the onerous task of working out a strategy, which should be nothing more than broad guidelines, but it also has the duty to ensure that either the public sector or the private sector, in taking decisions to invest, is investing in something which has a consistency about it.
I am not sure that I entirely agree with the Cockcroft committee in its assessment of central planning strategy, but one thing is certain—that unless the central planning authority can speak decisively for a long-term policy, planning cannot succeed.
The report makes one or two fairly basic errors, I think, in assessing the present situation in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that it is correct to say that the planning policy presently applicable is drawn from or equivalent to that operating in the highly urbanised areas of lowland Britain. I think that this is a misreading of what has happened in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland's strategy, in terms of modern planning, has grown out of a recognition that we were in danger of having the greatest proportion of the Province's population living in the capital city or the immediate environs. It is a problem very similar to that with which Denmark and Sweden had to contend. The attempted solution was not dissimilar to the policies that were adopted towards Copenhagen and Stockholm.
Unhappily, terrorism, which has existed in Northern Ireland now for all too long,


has to some extent—indeed, to a very large extent—changed that picture. Belfast, as an industrial growth centre, no longer presents the same sort of problem as it did before terrorism broke out. But it would be wrong, in my opinion, to develop a strategy now on the basis that the terrorists will continue to succeed in what they have achieved over the ast 10 years. It is essential to Northern Ireland that Belfast should become once again a magnet of considerable pulling ower, and our rural planning strategy must take recognition of that.
In chapter 2, the conclusion of the committee, in paragraph 8, is:
We do not believe that any overall planning policy for the Province should be a political issue".
I wonder what is meant by that remark. I can think of nothing more political than planning decisions of the sort that we are talking about, but presumably we are getting confused with the rather remarkable statement in paragraph 4 of the same chapter, in which reference is made to planning in an earlier age, alleging that it caused divisions, dissension and sectarianism. It is this sort of rubbish that seems to distort so much of our current thinking. Let us not allow these imagined problems to distort our thinking. We are dealing with something which is highly political, and which can best and only be handled in political institutions.
Chapter 4 touches with very considerable skill on the particular problems relating to Northern Ireland. I certainly agree that the Committee is speaking for the great majority of people in Northern Ireland when it says that there is a reluctance on the part of policy makers to accept anything other than the strictest proof of necessity to live in the countryside as good reason for planning permission. That is certainly my experience, and I have not found anyone in public life—or, indeed, professional life—who would seriously dispute that.
I welcome the approach of the committee to planning permission in rural areas, although I should like to see it even more flexible. I should certainly like to see a virile and vigorous approach to the encouragement of owner-occupiers. Compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is sadly deficient in the number of owner-occupiers in the

community. This is of importance to the stability and progress of any community.
There is one thing that I cannot agree with, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South has already referred to it, all too briefly. I for one would seriously question the right of the Department or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to take steps to acquire land in settlements or villages for sale or leasing to individuals. This is not the way to encourage owner-occupiers. It merely enmeshes them further in the control of bureaucracy and inhibits the style and character of private development.
Paragraph 23 of the report refers to the physical development strategy. The situation is well stated. As we move through the document, we would do well to refer back to paragraph 23. But I should like to see more emphasis on the question of the destruction and revitalisation of culture. That is something which is entirely different from what we know today as conservation or the maintenance of historic buildings and buildings of architectural appeal.
In every community, and particularly in Northern Ireland, enshrined in bricks and mortar, on highways and byways, in main streets and back streets there is tradition and character which is being rubbed out too easily by development. Too often what is there is razed to the ground and replaced by something which is totally different in architectural style and layout. Often the revitalisation of a culture can be better achieved by encouragement and by granting permission to restore and improve that which is already there.
Not only in our large towns but in small villages there seems to be a planning dream that our main streets should not contain a proliferation of shops—that there should be one baker and one laundry to a street. But it is no part of the planner's job to arbitrate what services shall be available to the community. Competition is the spice of life. We want our villages and smaller complexes to have all the variety of the villages of yesterday but with the amenities of today and tomorrow.
The recommendation in the report that will be endorsed by everyone is that
the present rural policy be operated in a more flexible and sympathetic manner".


That is easy to say. I welcome that declaration. In particular, I welcome the recommendation
That the special restrictions on the renovation, rebuilding and replacement of existing dwellings be removed.
That is a big step forward. If the right machinery is created with that type of objective, a major step will be taken for the benefit of our community.
I tend to disagree with the substance of paragraph 29. I do not believe that there is substantive evidence to question the value of urban and industrial concentration as a major factor in the resolution of the economic problems.
If Ulster is to have the economy that offers room for skills and energies, we must share in the development of modern technologies and we must be involved in large-scale industry. Skills and energy are not easily satisfied by taking in laundry or operating in small craft industries. The Northern Ireland of the future will depend upon its capacity to attract the most exciting of the industries that derive from modern technology.
Considerable skill is required in order to do that. We must bear in mind not only the skill of the urban facility and the services provided, but the skill of manpower. One of the things that has affected industrial development in Northern Ireland is the immobility of the labour force. I have known people to remain unemployed for long periods when a job is available in a town 15 to 20 miles away. This type of large-scale industrial development must be centred in a fairly large urban area if a labour force is to be found with any certainty.
It is important to relate rural planning to urban growth centres. Whatever the merits or demerits of the national policy, there must be a genuine and sincere effort to ensure urban concentrations in Northern Ireland without robbing or depopulating the rural areas.
I shall not go into the details of individual planning applications. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South and with the report that noticeability is not in itself decisive. There should be a general recognition that anyone should be able to build on his own land, unless there are good reasons for his not doing so. It is the responsibility

of the planners to specify and declare what that good reason is. The individual must have the opportunity to challenge the planning authority.
I am a great believer in avoiding as far as possible uniformity in the lives of people. The greater the variety the better. That is the spice of life. I hope that the report has taken us a step along that way.
I take exception to few of the recommendations. That must be the hallmark of any good report. The recommendation to which I take the most exception is that which involves the acquisition of land by the Department or the Housing Executive. I agree with the rest of the report but I should have liked some issues to have been given greater emphasis.
Tourism is promoted and recognised but there is little reference to the recreational needs of the people. Recreation Is important in terms of planning. The best opportunities for recreation occur in the rural areas.
I have left the most controversial disagreement to the end of my speech. It involves recommendation 30 which reads:
That, in order to raise the capital needed for the restoration of past, present and future development, some form of levy should be imposed on developers, supplemented by Government funds.
I can speak only for Northern Ireland, although I imagine that a lot could be said in United Kingdom terms on this question. The encouragement of development of any kind is not likely to be achieved if, as part of that encouragement, one holds out the spectre of further burdens of taxation. In Northern Ireland, I would much rather hear less talk about levies and taxes and do away with the concept of subsidies. It would be far better to relieve the citizens of taxes than to give him a subsidy.
In Northern Ireland, we have had some useful benefit from the subsidy given to the private sector of housing, but this benefit has been greatly overrated and exaggerated, and I should not be unhappy to see it disappear if it meant that we should be relieved of taxes on development. Of course, there are areas of activity to which some contribution has to be made. If the public purse is to create benefits from which the private citizens can derive advantage, there may be a case


for some measure of tax, but I am reluctant to subscribe in general to a levy in relation to all forms of development, be it the restoration of the past, the maintenance of the present or provision for the future. Incentive and guidelines are what are needed.
This is a most useful report. I am glad that we have had an opportunity to discuss it, and I hope that this will not be the end of discussion in Parliament before decisions are taken.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I make no apology for speaking in the debate, because I recently had an Adjournment debate on the decline of services in rural areas. I am always anxious to learn, so when I saw this document I wondered whether there was anything for me to learn from it, although its context is that of rural planning in Northern Ireland.
Having read some of the document, I feel that there is something missing from the debate thus far, and I hope to be able to make a contribution which hon. Members from Northern Ireland will accept as having some relevance. One of the terms of reference for the review was:
(e) Likely trends in population growth, population movement and employment.
I am somewhat disappointed that nowhere in the report is there a reference to the difference in character between the Province and what we find in this country. I claim no great expertise to talk about Northern Ireland in any context. In fact, in my adult years I have visited the Province on only one or two occasions. But I recall that, even as one looks down from the aeroplane, a striking difference is to be seen. What did that difference in landscape bring to mind? I could only think back to my very early childhood. The hedgerows were still there, and the landscape was small-scale.
I have made inquiries, and I think that the relevant point which is not mentioned in the report is the change of circumstances among people engaged in agriculture. I understand that, whereas about 14 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland are still engaged in agriculture, in this country the proportion has already fallen to 2 per cent. I should not like to be bound by the figures, but I think that

hon. Members from Northern Ireland will accept that they still have a significantly larger number of the total population in agriculture than we have in this country.
Looking at the report, I feel that there is a certain nostalgia reflected in its pages. On page 25, recommendation 7 is that
attention should be given to the wishes of rural dwellers to preserve their rural community connections and identity even though they may choose to work in urban areas.
Whether we speak of Great Britain or of Ulster, we must recognise also what is said on page 11 of the report:
…the drift away from the land has been evident in the Province for many years.
It is my contention that that process has gone much further in the rest of the United Kingdom than it has in Northern Ireland, but I believe that hon. Members will find that it has significant effects for Northern Ireland, too. No doubt there are historical reasons for the present relationship. Indeed, the report makes the point that
The agrarian history of Northern Ireland has also created an emotional dimension to land ownership that is unusually intense
and it points out that
The mainly 'owner-occupation' system in Northern Ireland has to be contrasted with what is, generally, the 'landlord-tenant' system in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Our experience in Great Britain has been that people have a love of the soil, especially when they own it. The problem for farmers even in Great Britain, when faced with the new techniques in agriculture and the new intensive methods, often capital-intensive methods, and economic competition from the larger holdings has been that, whether in pigs or in dairy farming, they have tended to put up one more lean-to and carry on with a difficult and hard job, frequently finishing up working 80 hours a week. I ask hon. Members opposite not to put that matter aside lightly.
There has been reference to local planning decisions and local input. I lived in a village for many years. I know very well that there is likely to be resistance from people engaged in agriculture. I do not say that in any political sense. It is just that there are farmers on the local authorities and so forth. I know from hard experience that if it is proposed that a factory should be set up in their area, they are not likely to be very


co-operative, because the workers employed in agriculture—I am sure that this is true in Northern Ireland unless circumstances there are very different—usually have lower wages.
I recall what happened in one village when some local authority housing was put up. When the farm workers moved out of their tied cottages into the dwellings put up by the local council, they speedily got jobs anywhere but in agriculture—on the railway, as roadsweepers for the county council or whatever it may have been.
I am therefore a little suspicious when I see reference to industry mainly associated with agriculture. This is an interesting idea—it has possibilities—but I do not think that we should lead ourselves to conclude that, if we can somehow have some small units of industry in the villages, this will dead to changes in agriculture so that farmers, farmers' daughters and part-time farmers can work in industry. We shall not change the general feeling of the villages and rural areas in that way.
What generally happens is this. I take the example of Scunthorpe, which I know very well. People have the dream of living in the countryside. Every Englishman—and, I take it, every Ulsterman—has his dream of settling down in a country district, with roses round his front door. But who is he when he comes to live there and do the infilling? He usually has his car. in my context, he will probably be a steel worker, a tradesman with a good income, and he comes into the village to live. But he is really no part of that community. He commutes in and out every day in his car. He is not concerned with the general services.
It has been said that the planners should not have the job of deciding how many shops there are in a vilage, how many butchers, bakers and candlestick makers. There may be a point there. But what is happening is that overall the number of people who are the true rural dwellers has declined. I have a feeling that that will happen in Northern Ireland. The people with the cars will come in. It is not the planners who are chasing them out; it is the fact now that we have supermarkets and hypermarkets, and people can shop there.
It may be instructive—perhaps it is happening in Northern Ireland now—to look at the number of sub-post offices that have disappeared from our villages. As the standard of living goes up, more and more people are mobile, and more and more are not the traditional villagers that we once knew but are coming in from a considerable area. They choose to do their shopping at the supermarkets and the hypermarkets. So it is very difficult for people to make a living in what were the old and accustomed ways.
I do not welcome all this. It may be that in Northern Ireland there is a chance for the Province to tackle matters differently. In spite of all that I have said, I do not think that we in this country have solved the problem. I think that there are possibilities with the small factory. Very much of this thesis, though, depends en that kind of approach. But it would be wrong not to anticipate the real difficulties that stand in the way.
There will be changes. Because of the system of land tenure, I think that people will tend to cling on to their small farms, where we have rooted out the hedgerows and have had massive amalgamations until our countryside is as different as chalk from cheese from what it was. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is older than I am. He will remember what our countryside was like when he was young. It is now very different from what it was. It is rolling country, so there is more dairy farming, perhaps, than in the context of Northern Ireland. So I think there is scope.
I certainly would have hoped that in this document more words would have been written on the subject of Northern Ireland having about 14 per cent. of its total population still in agriculture, whereas we in this country have 2 per cent.
The point is that as we go down this path—perhaps we could look at the figures for the United States, where although things are not entirely different, there is much more mechanisation and so on—the tendency, all the time, is for the little man with his pigsty, six pigs, or whatever, to be replaced by the pig factory. That is what they are. There are the broiler units and people going to work in factory conditions, which is perhaps the only area in our own agriculture where these units are operating.
If hon. Members were to read the provincial Press in this country—these matters are not often reported or debated in the House—the enormous problems that these units cause in villages would be obvious to them. There are problems of disposal of effluent, the obnoxious smells that are produced, and so on. They are very often unwelcomed by the traditional rural element. I have just attended a protest meeting about the installation of one of these units.
I urge hon. Members not to be too wildly enthusiastic about this report. I think that this is the start of the debate. It makes a contribution. Very often things go on in the Province of which we, as English Members, should take more note, in relation to some of the aid to industry and the changes that have been made. Some of it has a significance for us in this country.
If it were that even in that one field, some progress could be made towards integrating some form of industry in a rural setting without destroying the existing pattern of real community, which has much to commend itself, that would be a singular contribution that we should support. However, I am bound to say that I do not think it will be as easy as that. We shall watch and see how it progresses.

8.33 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is always good for hon. Members representing the rest of the United Kingdom to sit in on these debates and make their contribution. I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). But the fact of the matter is simply that different regions of the United Kingdom are entirely different from each other.
Northern Ireland, in its history, its agriculture, its tenancy of farms, its viability of the smallholding, and the desire of the people not to have a break-up of village life and rural community, is entirely different.
The hon. Member was talking about people from the towns wanting to move to the country. Our problem is rural people being forced into the towns against their will. That is why, for us on this Bench, the Cockcroft report is a breath of fresh air blowing through the planning offices, where people with pencils and

paper are trying to regulate where people will live and how they shall be pushed out of their heritage. That is why there is a fierce confrontation in Northern Ireland between the people and the planners.
Things are so bad at the moment that whole district councils are voting against every proposal of the planning officer because that is the only way in which they can protest. One councillor told me the other day, "We have decided to vote against everything he brings forward, because that is the only way to make him heed our opposition." No planning department can succeed without the cooperation of those for whom it is planning.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised one important point—that no elected representative should be asked to act in a judicial capacity. They are there to administer. Bringing councillors into an independent planning appeals board will not remedy the matter. They should sit in the council, taking executive decisions which can be appealed to an independent board. Elected representatives should not sit on a judicial planning inquiry. If we proceed in that way, we shall go further astray. That is one disagreement that I have with the report.
On balance, of course, I would far rather go before an independent tribunal as envisaged in the report than the Appeals Commission of Northern Ireland. Some hon. Members on this Bench will agree with me on that. I do not despise what the Appeals Commission has done within its parameters, but many of its decisions are contrary to the spirit of good planning. I have some experience, having been told by the commissioner that I appear at planning appeal tribunals more than any other elected Member.
The district councils must have a true executive role in the planning of their own areas. That is where the change should come. I am not as optimistic as the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Government will bring democracy back to Northern Ireland through those councils. The Minister has to do some hard thinking about giving the district councils a proper executive role. It is strange that, after deliberation, whole district councils should tell the planning officer that they do not like his decision and that he should reconsider it, only


to be told by the planning officer, "I refuse. I have the authority. That is my decision, and you can appeal if you wish."
Under the present appeals system in Northern Ireland, others who think that they will be aggrieved have no right of appeal. After all, it is not only the person asking for planning permission; there are other persons who, if planning permission is granted, may think that they will be aggrieved. If the planning officer decides to grant someone the right to build a factory or a hotel or a house, others in the neighbourhood who might object to such development have no right of appeal. Once the planning officer authorises the development to proceed and it is accepted that he is right, there is no appeal by other aggrieved parties. I believe that third parties should be able to set forth their objection to planning decisions.
I commend the authors of this report. They have set before us a very important point in paragraph 25 where they say that planning has been geared to the Northern Ireland regional physical development strategy, whatever that may be. They say, in other words, that the decisions in planning are geared to an overall policy which envisages that the rural areas will be depopulated by almost 5 per cent. from 1975 to 1995. I do not want the rural areas to be depopulated at all. I want the population to stay there. The authors also use this vital sentence:
evidence presented to us has overwhelmingly indicated that the policy is forcing the disintegration of rural communities with the consequent loss of social stability and declining use of earlier investment in churches, schools, halls, roads, water and other services; in short, the result of the rigid application of the rural planning policy is seen as a depopulated countryside scattered with abandoned buildings and derelict dwellings.
What an indictment that is.
My constituency is perhaps the longest rural constituency in Northern Ireland. It stretches from the borders of Carrickfergus right to Portrush and then down to Toome Bridge and the borders of Randalstown. I see these derelict dwellings. I am amazed that, when a farmer's son says that he would like to remove an eyesore and build on the site—a site which is usually surrounded with mature trees, a site which is ideal

for the building of houses—he is told "You cannot do that. We do not want rural development".
I congratulate those who made representations to the authors of this report because, by so doing, they ensured that many important points were brought out.
There seems to be a crazy idea that a farmer's son, when he is about to get married, must have his house built right beside the original farm house so that the two houses are together. No young man wants to set up right under the eye of his in laws—they are sometimes outlaws, as we all know, and perhaps some have more bitter experience of this than others.
There must be flexibility. I have stood on farms in my area and have heard the planning officers arguing down the throat of the farmer's son. I am thinking in particular of a farmer's son who is not engaged in a work outside farming but is the heir to the farm; his father and mother will soon hand over the reins. Yet the planning officers insist that his house must be built cheek by jowl with the parents' house. On one farm in the Rasharkin area, the only site available was the dunghill. The planning officer said to the young man "You will clean that up and that is where you will build."
This is a fact of life. I said that there was a suitable site across the road, but he replied "We shall have no building across the road". What attitude does that young man adopt to farming when he finds that an officer in the Northern Ireland Office is not prepared to allow him any leeway?
The report says that there should be a little positive thinking in planning in Northern Ireland and that we should adopt a positive and not a negative role. Those of us who have been at these planning appeals know how the refusal is worded. It is said that if permission is granted the development will affect the amenity of the countryside. That is the jargon of the planners. When one asks how it will affect the amenity of the countryside, the official goes into long, high-sounding phrases to defend the amenity of the countryside. I say that the sites at present occupied by derelict dwellings that are scattered across the countryside are the ideal places to build


these new houses. Let us do away with the derelict dwellings, and let people build on those sites and thus bring fresh life into the rural districts.
I have to laugh when I hear someone say that if there are sceptic tanks they will pollute the countryside. There are thousands of houses in Northern Ireland that have no septic tanks. They have what an old politician in Northern Ireland called Adam and Eve sanitation, and this has been going on for generations. People have been burying their sew-wage in the back garden. It would be far better if they were granted planning permission for a septic tank and were allowed to have some amenity in their homes.
The committee says that we should bring a breath of fresh air into the matter and be positive in what we do. It is time that we had this breath of fresh air An 85-year-old constituent of mine still carries her bucket out every day. People such as her should be allowed these amenities, and the idea that water courses will be polluted by allowing septic tanks to be used is ridiculous.
Another important matter dealt with in the report is the attitude of the planners to commerce in these rural districts. We have in Northern Ireland a series of what are called area plans. They have no statutory authority, but every time one goes to a planning appeal these plans are pulled out and one is told that one area is allocated for one purpose, another for another purpose, and yet another for a different purpose again. If the planning officer is asked what statutory authority the plans have, one finds that there is none. They are just ideas on the board. They are just a dream, and those concerned want to make everybody conform to what is really a nightmare.
In my own area in Portglenone the area plan has allocated a section of the area for industry. In other areas, such as Ahoghill and other villages, all the sites have been taken up but in Portglenone not one industrial site has been taken. Why? It is because that is the worst terrorist area in the district. Policemen have been shot and murdered in that area. No industrialist or workers will go there.
I raised a case with the Minister who is responsible for commerce in which the

planners had turned down projected industrialisation which would have provided work for 40 people. They did so because the man concerned refused to go to an area that would put both his building and his workers in jeopardy.
The matter went to the planning appeals commission. I fought the appeal, and the vice-chairman of the commission, who presided, recommended that the man should have permission. But when the man returned to the commission he could not persuade the people concerned, who had never heard about the case, that they should grant permission. Therefore, he asked that when they turned down the appeal his name be written in as protesting against their decision.
Those are some of the things that are happening in the appeals commission. I am glad that the Minister overruled the decision when I appealed to him, and that that industrialisation in that small village is going ahead and that 40 jobs will be available for the people there.
The Minister must have a hard look at the so-called area plans. I feel very strongly that this first ventilation of comment on the report will be helpful. But the Minister will need to take some interim decisions. I refer especially to the proposal about the in-fill sites. I have been at planning appeals where the planning officer has said "We shall allow one house there" and it was possible to put three there.
If the Minister is to make a decision later, he should surely deal with some of the matters that could have a decision made on them now. He could do some hard thinking now. I do not know what representations he will receive from district councils that will affect his decision on in-filling. The practical thing to do is to permit the in-fill sites. I believe that that is a decision that the Minister will need to take rapidly.
The length of this debate is limited. I have made the points that I feel need to be made about my constituency. I trust that we shall again have time for debate on the Floor of the House, after the Minister has heard the representations that will be made to him. I also trust that he will realise tonight that there are some decisions he could make rapidly that would at least ease the position and put encouragement into the hearts of those


who are prepared to invest, rather than go to public housing, in the rural community in order to hold it together.
In many rural villages both sides of the religious divide are well represented They live together and go about together, and there are no problems. The villagers of Northern Ireland have been practically immune to any discord between factions in village life. When those people are transferred into the ghettos of the city, when they are taken out of the environment that they have been used to and are put into an environment where they no longer have the stability that they had, they become an easy prey to the strife that can arise in those cities. Therefore, a contribution to the stability of our country can be made by the decisions that the hon. Gentleman has to take.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I welcomed the contribution by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I do not want to get into waters that I am not too familiar with as eagerly as he got into the Northern Ireland waters. The hon. Gentleman was not comparing like with like. Whilst his contribution was interesting, a better understanding of the rural situation in Northern Ireland is needed if one is to make a contribution that has some meaning.
For example, the hon. Gentleman talked about the 14 per cent. of the population who are engaged in agriculture in Northern Ireland as against the 2 per cent. on the mainland. I suggest that, although that 14 per cent. will reduce somewhat, it will not reduce much more. If it settles at around 10 per cent. or 12 per cent., that will be much healthier for Northern Ireland than the 2 per cent. is for Great Britain. The 2 per cent. on the mainland to which the hon. Gentleman referred is the consequence of the explosion in population that occurred in the cities on the mainland after the movement had taken place from the country into the town. That 2 per cent. on the mainland does not relate to the 14 per cent. or whatever in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Ellis: I was merely posing the question for the purposes of this debate. The hon. Gentleman must recog-

nise that, for example, milking machines are invented and people use them. A man may keep many more cows than he wants to. All I am saying is that there is a danger in the traditional pattern of rural life. There is equally a danger if we introduce the factories. I am interested to know who will live in the houses which form part of the in-filling programme. I have derelict houses in my constituency. The young people engaged in agriculture move to the towns. Those who take their places are not necessarily engaged in agriculture or working in the villages.

Mr. McCusker: The hon. Gentleman must understand—and if he were in County Armagh for a while I could quickly show him—that the problem is housing the people so as to keep them in the rural areas. Just 120 years ago North Armagh was the most densely populated part of the island of Ireland. In any road or lane in that part of my constituency there would have been one cottage after another. The famine certainly had its effect and reduced that population substantially. But it is still a predominantly rural area and highly populated. As one drives through it, one can hardly go 250 yards or more along a road without coming to two or more houses. Family sizes in Northern Ireland are substantially larger than in Great Britain and there is a desire on the part of those who were born in the country and have lived there for 20 or 25 years to remain there.
We have a substantial rural-dwelling population who travel five, 10 or 20 miles to work. There are many antiquated cottages, many of them belonging to the Housing Executive and as lacking in facilities as others referred to earlier in the debate. They were originally built for farm labourers and are now occupied by their descendants, who are perhaps tradesmen. Very few of these people are unemployed. Most of the unemployment is in towns such as Portadown, Lurgan, Craigavon, Belfast and so on.
There are very few people in Northern Ireland, with the exception of the old populations of Belfast and Londonderry, who are more than one or two generations removed from the country. Most adults could trace at least one of their grandparents to a rural background and most children in Northern Ireland today have a grandparent engaged in some form


of agriculture. The historic feeling for the country is a tremendous driving force throughout the community.
We need only witness the struggle by those still living in the designated area of Craigavon to hold on to what they think of as theirs, even though it has been taken from them for the so-called greater good—not a greater good which I support—to understand that feeling. Last week there were some disturbing scenes in Craigavon with one or two of the remaining farmers there trying to cling on to what is theirs and to get a fair deal before being evicted.
I am constantly having to help constituents to hold on to what is a fundamental dream of most of them, namely, to remain on their farms or at least to remain in the rural areas where they have been brought up and where their families have lived for generations. I could cite examples of how the planners have applied this strict test of the proof of necessity. I remember the case of an elder son of a farmer who would eventually inherit the small farm. At the time he was working in a factory belonging to a multinational company in Craigavon. He had married but had not set up house because he was hoping to build on the farm. His mother and father were due to retire and he was expecting to take it over in a few years' time.
We managed to obtain planning permission at the appeal only by showing that the shift system he was working was not a normal three-shift rotation system of five or six days a week. We managed to show that he was working the continental shift system of three by two by two. I was able to argue that because he was working three 12-hour shifts a week he had time to engage in certain agricultural activities. I believe that the persons who heard the appeal would not have accepted that if he had been working five eight-hour shifts a week he would have had time for such activities. That is the sort of nonsense one encounters in trying to get planning permissions for such people.
I have never considered that the countryside, particularly in Northern Ireland, would be enhanced if it were devoid of buildings. I think that part of the attraction of Northern Ireland's countryside is its vitality and the life that

exists because of the population that is there. This point was eloquently made by my right hon. Friend. Certainly there would be nothing for me in a barren countryside in County Tyrone, County Fermanagh or County Armagh. I would find it strange.
I support what my right hon. Friend said about Great Britain. I find it strange travelling through Somerset and Dorsetshire, going on mile after mile without coming to a farm or a group of buildings, but then coming to an attractive village or hamlet with another five or six miles further on. It is beautiful and attractive countryside for me to visit, but it is not the sort of countryside that I should want to live in. Nor would, I think, the majority of the people of Ulster, but for very different reasons, of course.
What I like about the Cockcroft report is that it is concerned with people more than with plans and strategies, and I am glad that there is an emphasis on rural dwellers, people who live in the country but do not necessarily work in agriculture and have established a right over many generations to continue to live there. For example, rural churches have declining congregations, but members of such declining congregations will travel five or 10 miles to attend what they regard as their own church. They will travel far in order to keep their traditions going.
I never cease to be surprised on a certain day each year—not so far away now—to see people walking behind a banner designating a rural district miles away from where they now live. They are behind that banner because their grandfathers or fathers came from that place, and when they themselves came of age to join they joined where the family had its roots.
Many people have a strong desire to build in these areas. I do not want to see good farmland destroyed any more than anyone else does, but there are many pieces of land on farms which are barren or derelict. I am glad to note that the divisional planning officer in Craigavon has given planning approval for a house on a piece of land on a farm which had no agricultural value. I hope that more consideration will be given to that kind of action.
Permission should be given for more replacement dwellings. I have never


understood why those concerned about the appearance of the countryside should be prepared to put up with derelict buildings when a well-designed modern house could replace it with much more attractive effect. I certainly want to retain firm control on the type of housing built in the countryside, and I like the section in the Cockcroft report which deals with planning advice centres which would help in such matters. Emphasis put on the overall design of buildings in order to establish some sort of uniformity might be useful as well.
I agree with the reservations that have already been expressed about the buying of land around villages. I do not think that will go down very well. Perhaps the committee came to that conclusion because it could not suggest any other way in which one could meet the point it makes in paragraph 22:
That the Department pursue its general aims in a more positive manner, not only by allowing, and being seen to allow, a certain amount of housing in the open country".
I suppose that that can be achieved only if people are allowed to buy land and go somewhere else. I do not quite know how the Government intend to put that suggestion into operation.
As I have said, I welcome this report because it is a human document which reflects the values of the people in Northern Ireland. If a mistake was made in relation to where the planning policy originated, perhaps it was the fact that Dr. Cockcroft brought with him the same views as did the Minister.
The Minister will remember saying to me a few weeks ago that, while he always knew rural planning to be important, he had never realised that it was such a burning political issue until he came to Northern Ireland. No doubt his views were conditioned by the fact that there is a particular rural policy in England which is generally accepted. No doubt Dr. Cockcroft also arrived in Northern Ireland conditioned by that policy. Perhaps that is why the Committee came to that conclusion. Irrespective of how the Committee reached that conclusion, the fact is that the policy as we have known it for the past few years has been wrong. I hope this report will go some way towards changing it.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael Males: May I first thank the Minister for his kind remarks which he made at the outset of his speech. I noticed that they were made before I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or had opened my mouth. I hope that he will have no cause to regret it when I have finished.
This has been an interesting debate on an exceedingly interesting document. I should like to associate all my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of thanks and congratulations to Dr. Cockcroft and his committee on having produced such an excellent report.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) took us through the meat of the report with his customary lucidity. I shall not seek to do that again. If I were to be so bold as to try to summarise what he said, it would be that this report had examined and identified all the problems with devastating effectiveness. If I am to ask any critical questions during my remarks, it will be whether the report goes as far down the road in offering solutions to these very difficult problems. Indeed, I believe that the contribution of the right hon. Member for Down, South and, indeed, that of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), stopped short of a really tough attempt to provide the answer which is clearly lacking in relation to the whole range of planning policy in Northern Ireland.
Since hon. Members from Northern Ireland have been through the guts of the report, I shall only skate lightly through the body of it and concentrate my remarks on the recommendations at the end. I refer to paragraph 6, which the right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned as a significant difference between one part of the United Kingdom and the rest. Normally that is something which he tells us should be otherwise. The report says that it does not regard
the historical need to prevent suburban sprawl and ribbon development…to be the major criterion of a rural planning policy for Northern Ireland".
It alleges that this is the major criterion in mainland England and points particularly to the South of England. It seems to suggest that the situation in Northern Ireland is so different as to require a very major difference in the laying down


of criteria. The report does not say what the committee thinks the criteria should be. It mentions the differences and problems in rural Ulster, but it does not go any further. I would have liked to see another set of criteria put forward for discussion since the committee felt the existing ones were wrong. But we do not see that in the report. Perhaps in the widespread discussions that will be held in the coming months we shall hear from the Minister what these criteria might be.
The same criticism will apply when we touch on the fearful lack of democratic control over planning procedures in Ulster. Having identified these problems lucidly in his speech, the right hon. Member for Down, South begged the question on the solution to them. If he believes that it is wrong that district councils should not have a say in planning; if he believes that it is wrong that all decisions should be in the hands of bureaucracy; and if he believes it is wrong—and here I agree with him—that district councillors should have a say in an appeal procedure, rather than in the initial executive decision, then he owes it to us to say what the solution should be.
I think it would be wrong, if control were introduced at district level, for it to be only for appeals. If one elects local representatives for anything at all, it is to decide something, not to change a decision that has been taken bureaucratically.
Although it has been suggested that planning decisions could be left to the district councils, would it be right or justifiable in the overall planning context of that part of the United Kingdom to leave all such decisions in the hands of 26 different councils? If the proposition is that that would lead to a lack of coordination and a lack of overall discernible policy one must ask how it should all be drawn together. For the life of me I can see no other way than by setting above the district councils some sort of body or authority that can draw the strings together and produce a comprehensive planning policy for the whole Province.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the old county councils, which had this planning authority, had no other council above them to appeal to. They went straight to the Department. Why cannot the Department take over this role that it had before?

Mr. Mates: The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He said that he wants the Department to do it, but then he will charge the Minister once again with being remote. Although the Minister is an elected representative, he was not elected by anyone in Northern Ireland and the Department would be taking decisions in an arbitrary way—

Rev. Ian Paisley: The point is that under the old system the county councils had planning authority. They made the original decision and the only appeal from them was to the Department. Why cannot we reimpose that system? That will not give the Department complete power because the first decision will be made by the local authority.

Mr. Mates: If we are to restore democracy, we must do so throughout, and we must start at a much lower level. But between that lower level and a central authority there must be some democratic answerability. In the old days of the county councils that answerability existed, but those days are gone. We are now seeking other solutions. The Conservative Party has devoted a great deal of thought and study to this topic and we have put forward suggestions as to how the matter should proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has made clear that an incoming Conservative Government will look hard at the possibility of setting up one or more regional council. He was referring to an upper tier of local government—not simply for planning, although planning must come into the matter. Unfortunately, I believe that this section of the report looks at the problem too narrowly. To set up an upper tier for planning purposes only, as the report suggests, would only proliferate those statutory authorities of which many people believe there are far too many in Northern Ireland at present.
There are some recommendations in the report which appear to me to be questionable, to say the least. I do not want to be too critical when I say that the report is rather short on solutions. Although one can understand and sympathise with the desire to cure, there are one or two suggestions, particularly involving the central authority, which might leave us worse off than we were before. Recommendation I says that if planning


is refused, the unsuccessful applicant should be offered an alternative site. That is a reasonable sentiment, but recommendation 2 says that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should purchase these sites and, if necessary, subsidise the unsuccessful applicant in the choosing of an alternative site if his first application has been turned down.
It will not take the sharp Ulsterman long to realise that that is a very good way of obtaining a piece of subsidised land, even if it is the piece of his second choice. That is what will happen, unless these matters are carefully controlled. Once again it can ony be centrally controlled. Before such a recommendation is accepted, it will need to be closely examined.
Recommendation 16 has already been covered very fully I wish to emphasis that I do not think that suggestion is the right one. It is surely not right to say that the first time one introduces the democratically-elected voice, it should be in the context of an appeal and not a decision.
The report recommends that not only those who have been refused permission should be allowed to appeal, but also
third parties affected by planning decisions".
From my knowledge of local planning, I consider that that recommendation seeks to go a long way further than the system that exists in the rest of the kingdom. That is opening the door to the representation of interests by third parties which are not fully concerned with the planning application itself.
Recommendation 23 speaks of applications
to build well sited, well designated factories and workshops, even with Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty",
and adds that such applications should be sympathetically considered. Who is to decide whether what is being considered is well-sited or well-designed? Who is to decide whether an area of outstanding natural beauty can take such well-sited and well-designed buildings? If these decisions are to be taken, surely it is irrefutable that those decisions must be taken by those who are answerable to the local community on whose behalf decisions are taken?
The same argument applies to the design and attractiveness or otherwise of houses. It is all very well to knock bureaucrats and planners and to say "They sit in their ivory towers deciding whether this or that is aesthetically satisfactory". They must be helped and consulted, but, above all, they must be supported by a democratic body for which they must work. That is the system which, roughly speaking, has made the planning laws acceptable in our community. It should be looked at in the context of improving democratic answerability as the supreme criterion in trying to solve all the problems posed in the report.
For the life of us, we cannot think of any way of achieving this other than by evolving some form of local government to bridge the gap that exists, not only in planning, as is shown so clearly in the report, but in many other areas where the events of the past five years have left problems over the government of Northern Ireland which we all seek to solve and which must be solved by the extension of local democracy and the powers of local authorities and by ensuring that they are answerable to the people whom they will have to represent, in order that we can be sure that decisions will have the agreement of the majority of people in Ulster.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I start by expressing the thanks of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Opposition for making available this half day for an important debate which has considerable social implications for Northern Ireland.
The Minister will not be able to answer tonight most of the points that have been put to him, but I hope that he has taken them on board and will consider them before reaching final decisions on the report. The hon. Gentleman should be under no illusions. This is an emotive and highly political issue in Northern Ireland. It always has been and I believe that it always will be.
Paragraph 38 of the report states that councillors should have far more than a consultative role. That is a self-evident truth for those of who, like myself, have been councillors, but it is a complete reversal of the present policy. It will give far greater control to councils and


will drive a far bigger hole in present planning policy than most hon. Members realise.
The planners were not happy with the former system under which they were employees of county councils. They wanted to get the power into their hands. They did, and, as I said last week and as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said tonight, the result has been open warfare at planning committee meetings. There is no responsibility for action taken by councillors and therefore no sense of responsibility in councillors. My colleagues and I have seen this at first hand, and I believe that there will never be any responsibility in the people concerned until they are made responsible for the decisions that are taken. I warmly welcome the recommendation in the report.
One of the most annoying problems for councillors is that the zoning changes every few years and can be completely changed within five years. People do not know where they are from one year to the next. Any decision taken on this matter must last for a very long time.
Few councillors and few other people in Northern Ireland have ever had a clear understanding of the objectives of the present planning policy, which has not been understood. A great deal of the criticism that I have heard about the application of that policy stems from ignorance. I am afraid that there was never any serious effort made to educate people as to the true position. Even when it was understood, nobody liked it. It was not accepted. I believe that the Cockcroft report sets out to correct a great deal of what was amiss.
One of the great problems, and the one that has concerned me most, about the present policy is that its application created a special category of people who could build houses in rural areas. I believe that this was based upon the assumption that Northern Ireland either would be turned or would turn naturally very rapidly into a highly urban society. The people of Northern Ireland did not want that to happen, and they resisted it in many different ways.
I believe that that whole theory was nothing but nonsense anyway, because the people of Northern Ireland have an

infrastructure in the country of houses, of schools and of churches that they want to maintain. They have a very close-knit community. I often think that it is just like a fishing net. It is closely bound together into the life of the community. It is, in fact, the community, and the people do not want to leave their homes. It is part of the general parochialism of the Northern Ireland people.
The people who were not allowed to build where they wished—there were many hundreds of them—were absolutely furious when the refusal came out. They tried to get around those refusals in every way they could think of. There were all sorts of special cases, hardship cases and medical cases. I think that some of them were simply invented. The trouble was that, once permission had been given on special grounds—and sometimes the medical cases were terminal cases—whenever the person for whom the house was erected died or went away, the house was still there and could be seen. The new occupant was there in contravention of planning policy, and in fact would not have been there if the house had not been put up originally on the ground of special hardship.
There is a danger in the Cockcroft report in that it seeks to perpetuate the special category by multiplying the number of people who will qualify. I think that this is wrong, and I shall return to that aspect later in my remarks.
All of us from Northern Ireland are very much aware of the scenic beauty in the place, and we want to preserve it. There are many people in Northern Ireland who want to live in a beautiful, well-designed house in a prominent position on a hillside perhaps or at the top of a hill, with a nice view. There are many people who would want to live in a more secluded area. Quite often they wish to live close to a hamlet, village or town. But the countryside consists of people and houses. If there are not people and houses, what is there to look at? Where is the beauty? Where is the life? Where, if it comes to that, is the whole of what one could call Northern Ireland society which has existed in the country areas?
I do not think that I have ever seen a photograph or a landscape of Northern Ireland without a pretty bungalow or a pretty cottage in it. The houses and the


people make the countryside what it is. I can safely say that we want to see a nice countryside, with the beauty preserved, and with quite a lot of houses and people living there to ensure that it stays beautiful.
Having said that, I suggest that one of the principal reasons for young people wanting to live in the country is that many of them can get a cheap building site. The economics of it are apparent, for, if a young man or a young woman can get a building site on the parents' land, usually it costs nothing. Cockcroft, in fact, recognises the economic argument by asking for subsidised plots near villages. If there were not an economic argument, there would be no reason to seek subsidised plots. In many cases this is simply an attempt to cut the cost of providing the house. The nut amount saved is probably between £2,000 and £3,000 per house. That is a substantial sum to any young man or woman, and it is worth saving.
The flight from the urban areas to the suburbs and the countryside is not so much a flight from a town as it is from the housing estates in which young people live. Many housing estates have been designed appallingly and the layouts are shocking. Should anyone require confirmation of that, he should examine the housing estates from which young people wish to escape. They want to move to estates where the houses are not jammed on top of each other and where they are not looking in each other's back windows. There is no difficulty in persuading tenants to remain in pleasant council estates. This aspect is too often ignored.
I turn to the summary of recommendations. I welcome the recommendation that there should be a relaxation of policy on in-fill sites. I draw the Minister's attention to the danger that is inherent in that if it is carried too far. The figure of two houses was set in an effort to prevent ribbon development What will be the number in the new policy? Will it be three, five, seven or nine? Alternatively, will in-fill sites be permitted only off main roads or down short driveways?
The report stresses the need for research into the problems of the special needs areas. We can recognise the needs on the outskirts of Belfast, Fermanagh or

Tyrone. One can see the different approaches in different areas. It is clear what is needed in those areas. But not so clearly understood is the effect of the present policy on those who live in the countryside where there is an ageing population and few young families. The population in the countryside, particularly in the more isolated places where no building has been allowed, is unbalanced and unhealthy. Something must be done about that. It can be done only by allowing young people to bring up their families in the countryside.
One of the most difficult problems to solve is that which involves the individual who wishes to live in the country for a special reason. I do not know how one can deal with that problem. The problem caused by the individual eccentric will always be with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) drew attention to the problem of the farmer's son who wants to build a house beside a farmhouse. One aspect of that has concerned me. Often the young man or woman is told "You will build your house there." That is usually the place where the farmyard should be extended. I have seen such houses built in the place where the farmyard should have been extended and the whole farm process has been thrown out of gear as a result. That is usually unnecessary because there are good sites a couple of hundred yards away.
I welcome the recommendation on the fostering of agricultural and ancillary industries in the countryside. But I am not clear what is meant by it. If it means mechanical repairs to farm machinery, that is very welcome. If it means some sort of blacksmith's shop, that is very welcome. Equally, if it means a processing industry, that is very welcome. But sometimes these things grow, and what starts out as a small shop with a welder and blacksmith working in agriculture becomes a fellow selling tractors and farm machinery.

Mr. Powell: Why not?

Mr. Ross: It depends where it is. The chap then wants petrol pumps. He then wants a car saleroom. Instead of being tied to farming, the whole thing becomes tied to the general structure of the countryside.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about industry and commerce mainly in the rural areas. I hope that he recognises where his reasoning is taking him. The point is—he is a farmer and he knows—that we have about 2 per cent of our total work force in agriculture and in Northern Ireland the proportion is still 14 per cent. If people are to get jobs in industry—if we are to allow the factories in—what will these people do? Eventually, Northern Ireland will move towards a more efficient agricultude, using less labour.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of farming in Northern Ireland, he will find that it is fairly efficient now. My point is that the industry which started in a small way, for the repair of farm machinery, eventually grows, and it started there because the site was cheap, too. It is then in direct competition with the fellow who may well be on an expensive site in the nearest town or village. There is a problem here which is not easily overcome and it cannot be ignored.
I shall say a brief word now about areas of outstanding natural beauty. Architects may be prepared to provide well sited and well designed houses in such areas, but architects are like everyone else and they will eventually produce what the customer demands, which may not be quite in keeping with what the planners are seeking. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and in due course give us his thoughts about it.
In the same connection, what is the position regarding the Crown's interest? We have a wonderful area of outstanding natural beauty at Magilligan, and the first thing the Crown did was to build a prison which would take the prize for ugly building anywhere. It is not something which the people of Limavady district have welcomed, and I hope that we shall see it removed in the not too distant future.
Another aspect of this problem is the question of quarries and gravel pits. I do not see the grounds for asking for a levy on future development in this respect. Anyone who is now selling gravel sells just that—the gravel and the sand—and he holds on to the land, part of the deal being that the land will be restored after

the gravel is removed. Therefore, any levy which is to be taken up from this day forward will be taken up, not to correct that which is now being carried on hut to correct the past sins of others who have already got their money and have long gone. Many of them, in fact, will be dead. This problem must be dealt with in a totally different way.
I referred earlier to the list of people in the farming community, including relatives, and even those employed in forestry and fishing. The list is nearly endless. If we add to that special personal and domestic circumstances, there will be hardly a person in Northern Ireland who could not find his way into that category by some means or other. Anyone who lives outside Londonderry. Belfast or the larger towns such as Portadown and Coleraine could come into it.
Therefore, if the Minister tries to keep and to expand the special category of persons who can live in the countryside for one specific reason or another, it is a line that cannot and will not be held. He would do far better to forget about keeping or creating special categories of persons and to accept that applications for building houses in the countryside should come before councils and before planners purely and simply on the merits of the application. There is no other way forward, and there is no other way out of the dilemma and the problem.
This is the only way that it can be done. Each application should be treated on its merits. The Minister should be prepared, whenever it reaches his desk, to accept his executive responsibility and act upon it. When we get a regional council—I hope that that will be in the not-too-distant future—applications would land on that council's desk and that council would be the perfect vehicle for exercising the executive function in this respect.
If the Minister tries to continue the path that has been set over the past three or four years, he will be heading deeper and deeper into trouble and will really only be making the problem worse.
Surely the objective view, and the professional objective view, of a building site and of a building should be the deciding criterion, regardless of any real or imaginary ties with the countryside.
Tied to the cost of building is the value of the site. Some people may think that there will be a vast influx if the planning application is accepted on its merits, but I do not believe that that is so. Farmers value their land in Northern Ireland. Farms are small and people will allow only their own children to build. I speak from personal experience and the experience of my friends and neighbours. They do not like selling building sites. They will sell them only if the price that is to be paid is far above the current market value.
If the Minister takes that fact into consideration, he will see that the dangers that often appear to rear their heads are not as real as they are sometimes imagined to be.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Carter: We have had an extremely interesting, useful and constructive debate. In contrast to some of the discussions I have had about rural planning when going round the various councils of Northern Ireland, the debate has been extremely even-tempered and highly objective.
I am only too well aware of the importance of the whole field of planning in the rural areas in the life of Northern Ireland. The wider the discussion and the more intense the discussion, the better. As the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment, what I want to see—and what I am sure any Minister who might step into my shoes at some later date would want to see—is a policy that is acceptable to the whole community.
I think that I would be right in saying that here in Great Britain, in most rural areas we have a planning philosophy that is, broadly, acceptable to everyone, irrespective of political point of view. Indeed, in my time in local government the question of politics never came into planning at all. We would vie with one another on the merits of a case, but the political attitudes struck by parties on planning were not particularly divergent. That is what I think we would all like to see in Northern Ireland—planning being treated on its merits and all matters of policy being freely consented to by all political parties and people representative of the community.

Mr. Molyneaux: Just in case the Minister has been misled by the little fatal sentence in the report, perhaps I could assure him that in my six years on the Antrim county council, the key position on that council—namely, the chairmanship of the planning committee—was held by a gentleman councillor who would, had he been around today, have been a member of the SDLP. His recommendations were invariably accepted by the predominantly Unionist council without a quibble. The cases were always decided on merit.

Mr. Carter: I accept that entirely. I was not drawing inspiration from the Cockcroft report, because I know from going around the local authorities that members of the SDLP, the Unionist Party, the UDP and Alliance band together when it comes to rural planning policy. There is no question of party politics being involved. What I am talking about is the body political consenting to a central planning ethos. That does not exist in Northern Ireland and all of us who are concerned with government there desperately want to see it come about.
So I do hope that hon. Members are in no doubt that I am aware of the feelings on this subject. I have tried to pay as much attention to them as I can. Indeed, the genesis of the report was my discussions as I went around the Province. At times, some of these doubts and the depth of feelings are misplaced That is particularly so with the current workings of the policy. People seem to believe that the vast majority of applications are turned down. Indeed, the impartial observer of this debate might feel that planning is directed against all those who wish to build a house in the country side.
In that light, the figures for the whole of the planning districts combined might be interesting. In 1975, 71 per cent. of all applications in rural areas—that is on a strict definition of "rural"—were approved. In all areas, 85 per cent. of applications were approved. In 1976, the figures were 66 per cent. and 87 per cent. respectively; in 1977, the last year for which I have figures, they were 66 per cent. and 87 per cent.
The present policy might have warts and imperfections in some respects—I


freely admit that—but on the basis of those figures, any fair-minded person will agree that we are being even-handed.

Mr. McCusker: I am trying to be a fair-minded person and I agree that the Minister is being fair by breaking the figures down. He will agree, I think, that as we are talking about rural planning, we must consider the rural planning figure. If 66 per cent. were approved, that means one refusal for every two approvals, which many would say was a fairly large proportion. But what the Minister does not bear in mind is that hundreds of people never go to the stage of seeking outline approval because their advice from the likes of myself, their legal advisers, councillors and others is not to waste their time, that if they do not have a good reason for wanting to live in that countryside, there is no point in applying. So there is a body of opinion, not included in the statistics, which keeps the pot boiling.

Mr. Carter: I find that difficult to believe. I accept that the hon. Gentleman might be prepared to advise people not to apply, but I did not think that people in Northern Ireland were reluctant to take the Government on. If people believe in their planning case, I think that they will come forward.
I cannot tonight say anything very positive about the report. My right hon. Friend and I want there to be the maximum possible debate upon it before any minds are made up. The local authorities will want to think carefully about the implications of the report, and I dare say that the Association of Local Authorities will want to see me.
I shall, in seeking to reply to as many as possible of the points in the 10 minutes that are left to me, reveal my broad thinking, although I think that most people will have a hint of it already.
Northern Ireland still has a basically rural community and, in that sense, it cannot be compared with any other part of the United Kingdom. One-third of its population lives in Belfast and the rest in the rural areas. There is still very much of a rural atmosphere around Belfast I accept that in a largely rural community the views of people living in rural areas should be reflected in our policies and planning.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said he did not want planning policy to move off in jerks. Nobody wants to see that. We want a policy to be adopted which everyone can accept, to such an extent that those concerned with considering planning applications can approach the matter in as detached a way as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman stressed the need for sensitivity. The figures I have just read out show that our present policy is fairly sensitive. However, others believe that we are quite insensitive. How sensitive can one be? One person told me—believing every word that he said—that we should not consider the two-thirds of cases that are approved but should think only about the 25 per cent. or 30 per cent., whatever the figure is, that are not approved, for that figure represented 100 per cent. He told me that we were refusing 100 per cent. of applications. That is a very strange use of statistics, but there are plenty of people in Northern Ireland who think in that way. The attitude is to support planning if it does what one asks of it but to condemn it as irredeemably wrong if it does not do what one urges upon it.
It is very difficult to get a balance in this highly sensitive area. Human judgments are involved and they are always fallible. By and large the officials in my Department do a pretty fair-handed job in getting the balance right.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that when he first went to Northern Ireland what made the greatest impact on him on looking out of the aeroplane window on landing was that there had been a pepper-pot approach to development. That is true. The trouble is that today that pepper-pot approach is proving rather more expensive than it did 150 to 200 years ago. Anyone who built a cottage or a small house in the countryside 150 years ago did not require much in the way of amenities. Today the story is entirely different—people want roads, schools, hospitals, telephone kiosks; they want a whole range of amenities which in a modern society they are entitled to argue should be theirs as of right. Planning then turns itself into an entirely different animal. We have to consider the use of resources, and in the current climate extremely scarce resources. We cannot


contemplate scattered rural development that will place on public funds a burden that we cannot afford.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—and I think he was quoting when he said this—that planning had denuded the countryside. I do not think that that will stand up to any sort of examination. Long before planning came on the scene the depopulation of the countryside was running wild. In the majority of Northern Ireland—in fact anywhere in Ireland—depopulation of the countryside had gone on for many years before planning became anything like a feature of modern government. Indeed, last weekend I watched a programme on the television entitled "The Irish Way" which was about Connemara, a poorer region than most other parts of Northern Ireland. The interesting point was that its problem was no different. A different political philosophy was operating there, but people were running away from that part of Ireland in droves and nothing much that the Government could do was having an effect. The broad point that the right hon. Gentleman was making was that we cannot equate planning in Great Britain with planning in Northern Ireland. I accept that entirely, and that lies at the heart of what the Cockcroft committee said.
There is another interesting concept to which I thought the right hon. Gentleman might have got round. It is something that concerns me, and has concerned others in this debate. This is the concept of having an area of outstanding natural beauty and limiting the sort of development that goes on in it. I admit that I have some doubts about how we could effectively operate a policy of that kind in a community with a great deal of unemployment. It is not an easy one to deal with, because conservationists rightly feel, as do the rest of the community, that the countryside belongs as much to them as to those who live in that part of the countryside which may be designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. My natural inclination would always be that if we can produce a development that is as consistent as possible with the preserv-

ation of the area as one of outstanding natural beauty, employment and opportunity should be a considerable factor in coming to the judgment that is finally made.
The right lion. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said that as he was a city Member we might be surprised to see him participating in the debate. I am not surprised at that. People who live in cities, towns and urban areas have as much right as anybody else to participate in debates of this kind. It is our country, and wherever we live we have a right to participate in a debate of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman went to say—or, to put it more mildly, to suggest —that property conferred rights, and he seemed to feel that planning and bureaucracy were interfering too much with the rights of the individual. I think that on reflection he will accept that in a modern society property confers only limited rights. If factories in his constituency owned by industrialists were committing a nuisance he would be the first, I am sure, to come running to my Department wanting some form of restraint imposed upon the people who were causing the nuisance.
He did not seem to feel that we had done enough to get the balance right between the individual on the one hand, and the community on the other. It is a sensitive issue—I accept that completely—but he can take it from me that we are trying all the time in the Department of the Environment to get it right, even though some people do not seem to feel that we are making too good a job of it.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he was against subsidies, which rather surprised me, as Harland and Wolff is in the heart of his constituency. Quite where we should get in Northern Ireland without the quite widespread use of subsidies, whether in this area or the industrial area, I do not know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) gave—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill it twofold. First, it proposes an increase in the limits of candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections. Secondly, it proposes an order-making power to vary the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary and local government elections. I shall deal with those purposes in turn, but first I should like to say a few words about the background to legislation on election expenditure.
The tradition, at least in recent years, has been for legislation on matters relating to electoral expenditure to be based on recommendations of a Speaker's Conference. Thus, the limits set by the Representation of the People Act 1948 were based on the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference of 1944 and the limits provided in the Act of 1969 were based on the recommendations of the 1965–68 Speaker's Conference.
The present limits, set in February 1974, were also based on the recommendations of a Speaker's Conference, though, as was made clear at the time, that recommendation had been produced very quickly in the context of an impending General Election. Indeed, the House may recall that the method by which that Bill was introduced in February 1974 was, to put it mildly, a little unusual. It was done through the process of a Ten-Minute Bill. As I remember, it was even done by a manuscript method.
The Government had hoped that a new Speaker's Conference on electoral law could be established to consider election expenditure generally as well as many other topics Unfortunately, it has not

yet proved possible to reach agreement which the official Opposition on all the topics for such a conference; nor have they been willing to agree to the establishment of a conference to consider the undisputed topics—including election expenditure—without prejudice to the question of including the disputed topics at a later stage.
Bearing in mind that the next General Election must take place by October 1979, the Government thought it right to seek the views of the other main parties on the need for an increase in the expenses limits for parliamentary elections. I wrote to all parties in April this year. Not the least of the reasons was that I wanted to avoid what happened in February 1974. We suggested to them that an increase wase justified to take account of the fall in the value of money in recent years.
I do not think that it would be any breach of confidence to say that the response to our proposals was mixed. Some of those consulted considered that it would be right to increase the expenses limits to take more or less full account of inflation. Some felt that no increase at all was required. Most of those consulted, however, considered that there should be a substantial increase, but with more emphasis on the variable amount per elector than on the basic sum.
In the light of those views we now bring forward the proposals contained in the Bill. They would increase the expenses limits for parliamentary elections to a basic sum of £1,750 plus 2p per elector in a county constituency. The figures for a borough constituency would be £1,750 plus Lip per elector. The present figures, set in February 1974, are £1,075 plus 1½p per elector in a county constituency, or £1,075 plus ip per elector in a borough constituency.
It may be helpful if I relate these figures to a typical constituency of 60,000 electors. Under the Act of 1974 the total limits for a county constituency would be £1,675 and for a borough constituency £1,525. The new figures under our proposals would be £2,950 and £2,650 respectively.
As hon. Members will appreciate, the percentage increases will vary for different sizes of constituency, because we are dealing with a basic element which


is the same for all constituencies and a variable element of 2p or 1½p per elector, which produces different sums for different sizes and types of constituency. There would obviously be other ways of arranging the increase—by giving the greater emphasis either to the basic element or to the variable element. We believe that our proposals achieve a fair balance between the needs of large and small constituencies. They also have the advantage of simplicity, which should be helpful to candidates and election agents in calculating the relevant limits in their own constituencies.
I know that there are those who argue that we should do away with the distinction between county and borough constituencies for expense limit purposes. At the same time I recognise, representing as I do a small segment of a city but a sizeable electoral population, that the greater distances generally involved in county constituencies can give rise to greater expense, and I do not think that we should abolish the distinction without a careful examination of the facts by a Speaker's Conference.
It may also be argued that no large increase is required for either county or borough constituencies since in many cases condidates do not come anywhere near their maximum. In this connection I have been looking at the figures contained in the return published in 1975 in relation to the October 1974 General Election. It is clear from that publication, as common sense would suggest, that, while in safe seats election expenditure was well within the limits, in marginal seats most candidates came very close to the maximum permitted expenditure.
In their excellent book on the British General Election of October 1974 David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh calculate that on average candidates spent 59 per cent of the permitted maximum but that in their 15 most marginal seats Conservatives reported expenditure of 95 per cent. of the maximum while for Labour it was 86 per cent. of the maximum. The Liberals are reported to have spent 93 per cent. of the maximum in their best 25 seats.
As hon. Members will know, there are very severe penalties for over-spending

by candidates. In particular, the successful candidate runs the risk of losing his seat. In these circumstances the Government consider it right to make the increases proposed in the Bill to permit candidates to conduct a reasonable campaign without incurring the risk of exceeding the maximum permitted expenditure.
Before leaving this topic perhaps I should say a few words about some of the more general problems relating to election expenditure. Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 provides that
No expenses shall, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election, be incurred by any person other than the candidate, his election agent and persons authorised in writing by the election agent.
It has been held that the present law does not prohibit expenditure incurred on advertisements which do not support a particular candidate but are designed to support, or have the effect of supporting, a particular party generally in all constituencies. I emphasise "in all constituencies". Nor does the law prohibit expenditure having the real purpose or effect of general political propaganda even though this does incidentally assist a particular candidate. On the other hand, it has been held that expenditure in a particular constituency is covered by Section 63 even if it is merely aimed at preventing one candidate's election in a contest of more than two candidates.
I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Litchfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) was given leave in May last year to introduce his General Elections (Limitation of Expenses) Bill, which was aimed at limiting expenditure by political parties and other organisations and requiring the publication of income and expenditure of such organisations incurred in connection with General Elections. I recognise that there are difficult legal and political issues involved in this aspect of the matter. It was for this reason that the Government hoped that a conference under the Chairmanship of Mr. Speaker would be able to give the question careful scrutiny.
Such a conference would also be able to consider the question of an increase in the candidate's deposit. This was set at its present level of £150 in 1918 and clearly an increase would be justified on


the basis of the change in the value of money since then. At the same time, we think that consideration should be given to the related questions of an alternative to the deposit as a means of discouraging frivolous candidates, and possibly a change in the level of support required to save a deposit.
Under the present provisions there can in some constituencies with a large number of candidates be a rather small margin between winning the seat and losing one's deposit. Some of these points were raised in the short debate in the House on 15th March, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was given leave to introduce his Representation of the People (Deposits and Nominations) Bill. The Government's view remains, however, that these are topics that can best be considered by a conference under the Chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it will in due course prove possible to reach agreement with the official Opposition on the terms of reference for such a conference.
It is for these reasons that the proposal on this aspect of the Bill is limited to increases in the maximum permitted expenditure by candidates at parliamentary elections. I hope that I have explained that aspect sufficiently.
I turn now to the other part of the Bill, covered by Clause 2. This provides that the Secretary of State may by order vary the maximum amounts of candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections, certain local government elections, and certain elections in the City of London, to take account of any change in the value of money. I believe that this would be a sensible procedural change. At present, it requires an Act of Parliament to make any change, however minor, in the expenses limits for parliamentary or local government lections. It is clearly right that Parliament should retain control over these limits, but it seems inappropriate to require the full legislative procedure in those cases where changes of a very limited nature are being made.
Clause 2 therefore proposes that the orde-making power should be limited to increases to take account of inflation. The orders would be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses and thus Parliament have the final say. We hope

that the House will consider this a sensible arrangement, bearing in mind that any substantial change in the structure of the expenses limits, either for local government or for parliamentary elections, would still require the full legislative procedure required for an Act of Parliament.
As a result of the Government's success in the battle against inflation, we hope that the need for such orders will be less in future. It is nevertheless realistic to assume that there may continue to be a need to increase the expenses limits from time to time and this clause would enable such changes to be made in an appropriate way.
As explained in the explanatory memorandum, the present proposals will have no effect on public expenditure or on public service manpower. I recognise that there are those who consider that there should be some support for candidates and the political parties from public funds. This matter was considered in great depth by the Committee on financial aid to political parties, which reported in 1976. The Government have not yet formed a view on the Committee's recommendations, which would require legislation, and, whatever one feels about it, it is an important issue that will have to be resolved, but not tonight. I am sure that the House will agree that the topics covered by the Committee would be inappropriate for this Bill.
As I have explained, the Bill is of very limited scope. The proposed increases in maximum permitted expenditure would, however, be of considerable importance to candidates in many constituencies, and I therefore hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight so that we can avoid what happened in February 1974—in my view, an inappropriate way, although I acknowledge that it was at short notice, to proceed with this matter.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: We are dealing with a Bill which, although small in purpose, obviously touches on some fundamental aspects of our politics and constitution. Although the aims may seem limited, it is right that we should look carefully at what is proposed and at what lies behind it.
Let me make clear at the start that we Conservatives support the limited purposes of the Bill. We think that it is right and appropriate that the expenses limit should be increased. We support the principle behind not merely the Bill but legislation going back to the end of the last century, legislation which has sought successively to limit the amount of candidates' election expenses which may be employed in a campaign. We have come a long way since elections were won or lost through
torrents of beer and gin",
to use Mr. Gladstone's description.
The question is whether this is an adequate increase. The average English constituency of, say, 65,000 electors by my calculation will be entitled to about a 77 per cent. increase over October 1974 and rather more than that over February 1974. But since February 1974 this country has been through a nightmare of inflation, which has involved retail prices rising by just under 90 per cent. My calculation is that if we were to stick to the same real values as before we should need a maximum of £2,942 for a borough and £3,253 for a county.
Of course, the Bill does not raise the maxima to those levels. Therefore, in effect we are tonight deciding to reduce in real terms the actual expenditure allowed for candidates' expenses. We are pitching it at a level below that prevailing at either the February 1974 or October 1974 General Elections. That may be right or wrong, but I am not at all sure that we should necessarily let a debate on this Bill go through the House without having made clear the reasons why we wish to reduce the expenses that a candidate may have as his or her maximum in conducting the election campaign. There may be very good arguments for it, but this is a cut. We all know that between February 1974 and now not only have costs and prices soared, but they have soared in the sort of areas covered by the kind of expenses incurred by a candidate in an election.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Rather than take the general inflation rate, which includes such things as food, would not it be more reliable to concentrate on the increase in the price of printing, for example, in order to get a truer calculation?

Mr. Howell: The hon. and learned Member anticipates me. I was just about to refer to some of the items covered by our expenses when we fight elections. One example which leaps to mind is that of telephones. A lot of telephoning goes on, and usually an office requires an extra telephone to be installed. That price has increased, admittedly not by the sort of percentage I was talking about earlier. However, in February 1974 the cost of a local telephone call at peak hour was I p for three minutes. It is now 3p for two minutes. A simple piece of arithmetic will show that that is a very large increase, indeed. The same applies to postage, over and above the free postage allowed in the free mail shots, stationery, hire of premises and all the rest.
In fact, the wholesale price index has gone up by more than 90 per cent. since February 1974. I do not think that there will be any dispute that the percentages are enormous and that on the whole, if we believed it right that a certain real value should be placed on candidates' expenses in 1974, we should have indexed the figure fairly precisely. We have not done that. We have fallen short and, therefore, in this Bill the Government have proposed that the real value of expenses should be somewhat cut. That is the position.
We support the purpose of Clause 1, but there are one or two questions that I wish to raise. The first is the gap between the counties and the boroughs. This gap has closed steadily since 1946, when the borough maximum was four-fifths of the county maximum. It is now 90 per cent. of that of the county. I do not know whether this is intentional or desirable. On the whole, I would not go along with those who say that we should even out the difference altogether. The expenses of a large county area are bound to be different. One only has to look at the cost of petrol and transport for a start. We should recognise that the gap has been steadily closing and it may be that when a Speaker's Conference comes about the differentiation between counties and boroughs can be looked at again. We can then consider whether closing the gap is intentional rather than accidental.
The next matter that I want to raise concerns the new powers available to the Secretary of State. I think that I am right in saying that it is proposed that there


should be an order by the affirmative resolution procedure. This would come before the House and the Secretary of State would then propose some increased figure. Whether it would be indexed in line with inflation I do not know. If we have to travel this path of building in automatic compensation for inflation in the belief that it does not make any difference when really it does—and it is a path I view with sorrow and dislike—the Secretary of State should explain why there is to be a further cut in the real maximum for candidate's expenses.
In 1918, when it was proposed to bring down the level of expenses very sharply to tighten up the whole pattern, it was argued out in the House. Let us not hide behind the shabby curtain of inflation in putting forward proposals which are, in effect, to change the situation. If in future this new procedure were used and the maximum were not fully indexed in line with inflation, that would change the situation. That should be made explicit and clear.
We are dealing here with just one aspect of the laws governing the use of money in election campaigns. Most of that law is of nineteenth century origin and character and is none the worse for that. Indeed, one could argue that because it is nineteenth century it is in fashion at present. But it points to the need for revision.
We are bound to ask ourselves at what point an election campaign begins. This is not precisely described in the Bill. We are bound to look at the issues raised by the conduct of referenda, the way in which by-elections are conducted, and how the whole razzamatazz of by-elections is somehow coralled and squeezed into the corset of this legislation.
This is often done in a way that may satisfy legal exactitude, but everyone knows that if we were to look clearly at it afterwards, it simply would not add up. Perhaps we need to look at these things again and perhaps it should be done through a Speakers Conference on electoral law.
I do not go along with those who say that this whole area of law needs reforming. I do not hold with the mood that says that just because legislation is old it should be changed. The truth is that when all is said and done, we

manage to conduct our elections with some economy and restraint. We may criticise each other on various aspects and features of the way in which our central organisations spend money and run elections, but if we compare ourselves with electioneering in other countries we sec that we manage it with a procedure and economy that others envy. It would be very unwise to discard this in the cause of some frenzied reform and a belief that, because the legislation is old, it automatically needs reforming.
On that note of reaction, if I may so put it, and against the cries of those who would reform and revise everything for the sake of reform and revision, let me repeat that we support the limited aims of the Bill. We believe that these increases, although they do not fully maintain the situation that prevailed in 1974, are at least a great improvement.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Bill is a welcome change from the undignified procedure that we have seen in the past—rushing into last-minute changes in the rules governing election expenses on the eve of a General Election. By and large this is an acceptable way of going about the matter and we must set the precedent of handling these provisions at a reasonable point in the life of a Parliament and perhaps earlier in the life of a Parliament than this.
However, I have some doubts about the order procedure. Liberal Members pressed this point in our consultations with the Home Secretary. I should have been particularly unhappy if the order procedure had been so wide open that a Minister could use it to make major variations in election expenses on the eve of a General Election on the take-it-or-leave-it basis contained in the order procedure. It would have opened the way to a party that found itself in funds to arrange a massive increase in the permitted expenses limits—or perhaps to do the reverse, although that seemed less likely. In the former case, if a large increase were proposed, those hon. Members who felt that some increase was necessary because costs had risen so far that they could not object to any increase would be unable to amend the order. If that happened at the very last minute


before a General Election, it would mean that the prospects of throwing out the order and of getting it brought back in an amended form would not be open to those hon. Members.
Therefore, the limitation in the Bill that links the use of the order procedure to the effects of the change in the value of money is desirable. It may seem a slightly cumbersome procedure and rests on the opinion of the Secretary of State, but it is desirable. Furthermore, it opens up the possibility that expense limits might even be reduced, if the circumstances are different from those experienced in the past few years. We pressed for such a limitation to be in the Bill, and I am glad to find our suggestion adopted.
Printing and paper costs have increased considerably. We must accept some measure of increase in the limits of candidates' expenses, but the House must be cautious on this aspect. We do not want a democracy in which money talks and in which the ability to expend the largest amount is the determining factor in the kind of election that is fought. Therefore, we must carefully examine any proposed increase. Even though in this instance there has, in effect, been a cut because the full effects of inflation have not been felt, we must remember that we are judging this legislation against the background that the limitation is based purely on the expenditure of the candidate in the constituency and not of the party as a whole. Anybody who supposes that one can draw an effective distinction between the political consequences of the money the candidate spends in distributing his election address and the political consequences of nationally financed newspaper and poster advertising campaigns in elections is deluding himself.
The party nature of elections nowadays is such that it is a nonsense to suppose that a series of advertisements in local newspapers in a marginal constituency at national expense is not part of a local candidate's election campaign. We are judging these limitations against the background that a party which, for example, can afford to spend vast sums placing advertisements in as many women's magazines as can be persuaded to add accept them is in a position to fight an

election on a completely different footing from other parties. If the Conservative Party can do that now in the run-up to an election, what can it do in an election campaign?
We must therefore ask why in legislation of this kind we are not placing limits on the total expenditure of a party in an election campaign. If we do not do that, big money will be given the opportunity to play a large part in elections, and it will be at national level that that big money is spent. If there were no limit on expenditure at constituency level and therefore the choice of where to put the money were not governed, to some extent, by that limitation, a large part of it would still be spent in the same way as it is now—in national newspaper and poster advertising and other expensive means of adding to the party propaganda. We delude ourselves if we suppose that this element can be left out of our considerations.
We are also considering the Bill against a background of no progress having been made on the recommendations of the Houghton Report on funds for political parties which referred specifically to assistance to candidates and parties and wanted its recommendations implemented by 1st April 1977. That is some time ago.
If we are anxious to have a democracy in which it is not the ability of the well-financed sections of the community to put their money into party campaigns that counts, we must consider either being very strict in the limitations imposed on party propaganda or other ways of financing political parties. What sort of democracy do we want? Do we want one in which it is big money that makes the difference in elections, or one in which, by one means or another, we ensure that the opportunity to present a case to the electorate is broadly the same for all the parties that seek to do so?
Democracy is not served if too great an opportunity is given to big money and that is the danger that we face if we put all the limitations on expenditure at constituency level, as is done in the Bill, and put none on the ability of parties with really big money—and there is only one party in this country with really big money—to do what they wish with that money at national level. We shall be


making a great mistake if we do not look at this matter from both points of view.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary started reeling off the percentages of the maximum that various candidates had spent, I was not sure whether he was going to list them in the order of those who came closest to spending the maximum. I have just done a small sum and found that my expenses in the last General Election campaign were 99·59 per cent. of the maximum—just £7 short of £1,470. We manage things very well in Perry Barr. We are a marginal constituency. We sought to spend the maximum possible and we achieved a successful result, though I do not know where we shall get the money to fight the next campaign on the basis of 99 per cent. of allowable expenses. Like most other Labour constituencies, we are not backed by hundreds of thousands of pounds from City and business institutions, and the trade union coffers are not exactly overflowing.
It is significant that both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the problem of expenditure outside that of the individual candidate. It is also significant that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) did not refer to this important change which has taken place in electoral practice in recent years. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that there was only one party in this country that could mount an all-out campaign with money being no object and he was certainly not talking about the Liberal Party or the Labour Party.
When. I came to the House today, I saw something on the corner of Parliament Square that caused me to raise a point of order with Mr. Speaker at 3.30 p.m. Political propaganda of a party nature was attached to the railings of this building. I did not mention the name of the organisation when I raised the point of order because, bearing in mind the time at which I raised the matter, I did not want to give the organisation free publicity. I have done some homework since then, because the matter is relevant to this Bill.
The organisation was the Campaign Against Building Industry Nationalisation

—CABIN. The first point to make is that it is not Labour Party policy to nationalise the building industry as such and the campaign is therefore misconceived. Mr. Speaker made sure that that party political propaganda was removed from the railings.
When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill he mentioned the problem of national expenditure outside individual constituencies by the parties and, more important, by organisations outside the political parties. My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that under Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act no expenditure outside the candidate's own expenditure may be spent for a particular candidate. The only allowable expenditure is that spent by the candidate or with his approval. My right hon. Friend made the point that any such expenditure has to be of a national character: it must go all over the country.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly takes exception to this, and so do I, but it is not the main point of my argument. Such expenditure is here with us already on the part of the pressure groups outside this House, representing all types of issues. Money is expended during a General Election. The groups get an airing for their views and try to put pressure on the candidates. This is legitimate to an extent, but I should like to see it controlled.
What is illegitimate and must he illegal is the spending of money by organisations in particular constituencies in order to sway the result one way or the other for a particular party. But I am not talking now about political parties. I am talking about organisations that spend money in a constituency in order to influence the result, and where the money is not recorded in the election expenses of the candidate on whose behalf the money is actually spent.
I have only one example that I want to give. The organisation to which I referred earlier, CABIN, stated in The Times of 19th June 1978 that it had set itself up. Sir Maurice Laing, who is the chairman of John Laing, said that CABIN would use all the resources at its command to alert the public about the threat, as it sees it, to the building industry. He said that money was no object,


but that it would take a lot, with estimates of £300,000 for this year.
It is all right if the organisation wants to put advertising in the local Press in every constituency in the country, with leafleting and so on saying "This is the Labour Party policy", even though I think they have it wrong. It is fair enough to do it in every constituency. This can be done. It is money that the Tory Party will not have to record in its election expenses. Nevertheless, within the law it can be done.
What must be objectionable is the statement in the same article in The Times that 300,000 balloons will be released and the reference to
space taken in local and national newspapers and intensive campaigns conducted in about 100 constitencies where it is judged that the issue could tip the electoral balance".
That flies totally against the concept of limiting candidates' election expenses. For an organisation to use money from shareholders, from profits—in the case of George Wimpey, profits on which no tax was paid, as I pointed out on several occasions in the House—and to spend it in 100 constituencies, selected by their marginality, directly to attack the Labour candidate and the Labour Party can only be of direct benefit to the Tory Party. That is what is meant by
where it is judged that the issue could tip the electoral balance".
This must be illegal, and I want the Home Secretary to allude to this. If he cannot do so tonight, I ask him to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and with the Director of Public Prosecutions about a possible charge against these building companies of conspiracy to get round the Representation of the People Act 1949, because that is what is happening here.
In no way can this expenditure be properly accounted for. The Tory Party will be the direct beneficiary. It will not of course, complain about it. It wants the electoral system to be rigged so that money can buy votes, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, because that is the one way in which the Tory party knows it can win. It will have unlimited resources if the need arises.
The Tory Party will be acquiescing in a campaign organised by these public relations companies on behalf of the build-

ing companies. I think that the campaign is being run from a private house in Mayfair and the organisers are seeking to lobby Labour Members. I shall go to the meeting called by the organisation later in the week. I shall not be convinced one iota by the campaign but I shall listen to what the organisers have to say and see what sort of propaganda they are putting out. I hope that I shall get a few answers to the questions that I have raised tonight about the illegality of this form of campaign.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: What does the hon. Gentleman say about the expenses that might be incurred by trade unions working for the return of a Labour Government?

Mr. Rooker: The question is not sufficiently specific for me to answer. The trade unions operate nationally. They do not go into individual constituencies and conduct a campaign in selected areas. Trade unions officials working in election campaigns cannot be paid and they cannot hire canvassers. The money spent is registered in the returns. Such involvement is different from that proposed by CABIN, because it is national. If CABIN ran a campaign in 365 constituencies, it would be within the law. But conducting a campaign in 100 selected seats where it thinks it can tip the balance it is operating as a secondary Conservative Party.
CABIN's expenditure will not be made public. I shall be able to ask the returning officer to allow me to look at the amount spent in my constituency. After tonight I shall represent one of those marginal constituencies. We are prepared to take them, but only if everyone operates under the same rules. CABIN can look at my expenses. I want to be able to look at its expenses. I want to be able to examine all the money that is spent on behalf of my Conservative opponent.

Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that any expenditue by a trade union is limited to the amount in its political fund? Is he aware that about 200 candidates at the next General Election will be sponsored by the trade union movement and that each of them will have to declare every penny spent on his behalf by a trade union? That is the requirement of the Representation of the


People Act and it has been the practice for many years.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. He argued the case better than I did. Trade union expenditure is known. A company S and U Stores, owned by the former Member for Birmingham, Yardley, Mr. Derek Coombs—who lost his seat in February 1974, I am glad to say—and his father is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading for breaking financial loan laws. Mr. Coombs used his employees to campaign for him and did not declare that in his election expenses. Because it is too late, the police will not prosecute. This is accepted and public knowledge in the West Midlands.
It is another example of a Tory Member with big business to back him up using his employees in an election campaign. One of the employees confessed that he would not vote Tory but the boss told him to get out in his car for a couple of weeks and do what he was paid to do. It took four years to find out about that, because correct election expenses were not returned.
We want to kill the CABIN issue before it gets off the ground. I hope that this short debate will do that.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am disappointed at the relatively narrow way in which the Bill is drawn. The Bill seeks to take into account the effect of inflation on candidates' election expenses, but it does not deal with the other expenses that are covered in the Act.
One expense is dealt with in Section 62 of the 1949 Act and limits to £100 the personal expenses which a candidate may pay himself. This might be of academic interest because some candidates would not contribute that amount but some might be willing and able to do so. In 1949 £100 was considered to be a reasonable limit. If £100 was a reasonable figure in 1949 a substantially higher sum would be reasonable today.
I turn to the question of the work done by our election agents, to whom all hon. Members owe so much. During and after an election the agent compiles a detailed return of all election expenses which are lodged at the local town hall, in accordance with the Representation of the People Act 1949, which this Bill seeks to amend.
As hon. Members know, virtually every expenditure has to be accounted for. Section 61 of the Act provides that
Every payment made by an election agent in respect of any election expenses shall, except where less than forty shillings, be vouched for by a bill stating the particulars and by a receipt.
That is still the law—that for expenditure on anything more than £2 the agent has to obtain a written account and a signed receipt and attach it to his return of election expenses.
In 1949, it was obviously considered that anything less than £2 was so trivial that it need not be detailed individually. That being so, a more realistic figure now should be inserted in the present Bill or some other legislation so as to relieve agents of some of the burden of work in making their returns. Many small expenses are involved in election procedures. Nowadays, when receipts are relatively rarely given, it seems unnecessary that an agent should have to ask for a detailed account and receipt for every expense of £2 or more. I am disappointed that there is nothing in the Bill to take that into account.
I raised this matter when a similar Bill was before the House in March 1977, and I had hoped that the Home Office would take the point and do something about it at that stage. Unfortunately, even if the proceedings on the Bill had not been so rapid as they have been, precluding me from seeking to table an amendment, I suspect that I should have been ruled out of order by the terms of the Long Title if I had prepared an amendment.
I think it unfortunate that the Home Office did not feel able to take steps to meet those two relatively small points. I had hoped that it would be possible, even in the limited time available, to produce a short Bill to cover them. I am sure that it would be passed rapidly by the House, as, I trust, the present Bill will be tonight.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: The ability of many Labour Party constituency organisations to raise money has not perceptibly increased since the last General Election. Although the increases envisaged in the Bill are based on the rise in printing costs and so on, many constituency organisations have no hope of raising the £2,800 which is likely


to be the new average. There are 400 Labour candidates who are not union-sponsored and, in my view, the great bulk of them will not be able to raise the maximum envisaged in the Bill.
That means that the great advantage given by the Bill must lie with the Conservative Party rather than with the Liberal and Labour Parties. This is an indication of the present Government's fairness. In spite of the advantage going to the Conservative Party, they are none the less introducing the Bill. As long as that is clearly understood, the Bill can go through.
This is being done as an act of democratic fairness, but in the Bradford area, for example, or in Yorkshire generally, I can think of hardly any non-sponsored Labour candidate whose party will be able to raise the maximum under the Bill, whereas every Conservative candidate will have no difficulty in raising the maximum. There is thus an additional advantage to the Conservatives, but they will not win all the same.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I intervene for only about 30 seconds to say that the speech to which I have just listened from the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) really was utter rubbish. As one Conservative candidate at the next General Election, I can tell him that in my parliamentary constituency I shall have great difficulty in raising the kind of money that is provided for in the Bill. That will not stop me from trying hard to do so. But it is rubbish to try to pretend that Labour Members will not be able to raise funds from their supporters whereas the Tories will. It is time that the hon. and learned Gentleman's party woke up and got cracking on its supporters. We shall do so. If one has a good case to support, people will give their support. I support the Bill.

10.50 p.m.

Mr Merlyn Rees: The Bill is about only one aspect of the matter of expenses. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) hoped that other matters would be in the Bill. I was at the Home Office in the 1960s and I am now there again. In my view, it is most important that these matters should be discussed

at a Speaker's Conference. I hoped that in the past year, when there has not been agreement on one major aspect of the matter, these matters could have been discussed. What I have tried to do is to discuss the matter with all the parties, since 5th April, which is a second-best, but the best available, because we were dealing with only one issue.
There are other matters in regard to candidates' expenses. There is a matter which I think needs urgent discussion, namely, by-elections. We have not dealt with the wider issues.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about big money. We have had an example of that in elections within the past 15 years. We are in the age of the advertising agency, of voice training, and things of that kind—which Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli and others did not need. In the twentieth century, presentation and that kind of thing matter. There is the role of public opinion polls. Vast sums of money are involved. There is a problem about the large sums of money.
I say to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that it is not so much the money spent in the constituency that matters; it is the money spent outside the constituency, and the individual campaign of a Member that is important. The Burton constituency used to get a lot of mention in the nineteenth century with regard to election expenses. I believe that the brewers played a big part at that time. When Mr. Gladstone referred to gin—I have not looked up the quotation—I imagine that he had Burton on his mind.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) did not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). I am not a sponsored Member, but I get £100 from the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. I pay it straight into my party. In Leeds we can believe anything about Bradford. But in Leeds we raise the money by holding jumble sales and activities of that kind. That is the way that most parties operate. Any posters which the Labour Party outside the constituency happens to put in my area have to be accounted for by me on my election expenses.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right; vast sums of money are


involved. I shall come briefly to the point about CABIN from Mayfair. The only representations that I have had about Mayfair since becoming Home Secretary were from a Conservative delegation who came to see me about houses of ill fame in Mayfair. Perhaps this CABIN in the sky is one of those.
Briefly—because we have covered the ground—what the Government have done is, on one issue, to try to deal, on the narrow point, with the sums of money that are involved, the basic sum plus the extra differing sum in a rural and an urban constituency. As I argued earlier, I think that the proposals are about right. I have consulted all the parties. It would have been better had it been done through a Speaker's Conference, but I have done the best I can since 5th April. What I propose today is the result of the consultations.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) talked about the gap between the counties and the boroughs. That is another matter. What I am doing now on behalf of the Government is carrying on the trend that has come out of Speaker's Conferences in recent years. This matter ought to be discussed at a Speaker's Conference.
With regard to the new powers, there is no automaticity on this matter, as the hon. Member for Guildford put it. We do not have to come forward again, perhaps in the middle of next year before the election of September 1979, with an order. We would have to consult before doing so. There is no changed method here, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed noticed. Indeed, we took into account some of the views put by the hon. Member and other parties on this very point. However, I believe that the most serious cases of unregistered voters arise in service areas—the towns where a large number of residents are in the armed forces—residents who also have their families. I shall not go into the detailed reasons for this more than I need. I am conscious of the rules of order. It is a limited method of tackling the problem. We are dealing only with the precise point of the expenses. We are not dealing with changed methods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised the question of the organisation known as CABIN. As he was good

enough to inform my office that he intended to raise the question, I obtained a copy of the advertisement from The Times. It says that 300,000 balloons will be released. I hope that some will be released over my constituency. I would welcome anything that would improve the atmosphere at that time in my constituency. I do not know what message will be on the balloons, but it seems from what I read here that the organisation has it wrong before it starts. It is fighting a campaign against something that is not going to happen, but it is following a very good Conservative tradition in doing that.
The organisation intends to run, in 100 constituencies, a campaign on the nationalisation of the building industries. It would be for the courts to decide, if a prosecution were to be brought, whether there had been a breach of the law. I can do no more than repeat what I said earlier; it is one thing to do that in the country as a whole but, if the organisation wishes to act in that way in selected constituencies, I suggest that it spends some of the vast sums of money that it has on consulting a lawyer before proceeding further. I do not think I should say any more about that, because a matter of fact is involved that would have to be decided in a court of law.
These proposals are modest. I think that they are right. I wish that there had been a Speaker's Conference, but there has not been. I have consulted. I hope that the Bill will be accorded a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bates.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause No. 1

ADDITIONAL EXPENSES FOR UNREGISTERED PERSONS

(1) The Secretary of State may, where he is satisfied that there exists in any constituency


a substantial number of persons eligible for registration as electors but not so registered, order that an appropriate number of persons shall be deemed to be entered in the register of electors for the purposes of section 64(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1949; and the overall limit on candidates' election expenses shall be increased accordingly.

(2) An Order under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before, and, approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Viggers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the clause is to recognise the large number of persons unregistered for voting and to allow expenses in respect of them. The clause is of narrow application. I can say that because the figures of population as against the numbers registered for voting are available. The whole population above the age of 18 in June 1976 amounted to 35,627,500, whereas the number of electors on the 1977 electoral register is 35,653,771. I recognise that we are not comparing like with like: there is a discrepancy between the two figures of only 0·1 per cent, or 1 in 1,000.
When I say that the clause is of narrow application I do not mean that it is unimportant. Where there is a discrepancy between the total number of adults in a constituency and the total number of persons registered for voting, it can be a large discrepancy.
The first is Kensington and Chelsea, which comprises two constituencies. The population over the age of 18 in 1976 amounted to 138,965, whereas the electorate on the 1977 electoral register amounted to 117,746—a discrepancy of 21,219, this meaning that about 15 per cent. of the adults in those two constituencies were not registered for voting purposes.
There are many reasons why those living in that area of Kensington and Chelsea may not be registered. This is an area where many people live in flats. Many young adults will be registered in their original constituency, where their parents live. Also, there are people of foreign origin who may not wish to be registered here, and, of course, there are some residents who have two houses and may be registered elsewhere.
A similar pattern, though perhaps for different reasons, arises in the London borough of Camden, where the three constituencies of Hampstead, Holborn and St. Pancras, South and St. Pancras, North produce the following figures: the population above the age of 18 in June 1976 amounted to 156,629, and the electoral register for 1977 showed 143,037, which means that the number of unregistered adults amounted almost to 10 per cent.
However, I believe that the most serious cases of unregistered voters arise in service areas—the towns where a large number of residents are in the armed forces —residents who also have their families. I shall not go into the detailed reasons for this more than I need. I am conscious of the rules of order. The subject was the basis of an Adjournment debate on 2nd February of this year, and the facts are well known to Ministers at the Home Office, but to make sense of my argument I must give the bare bones of the background.
The Representation of the People (Armed Forces) Act 1976, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), had the admirable purpose of making electoral registration easier for service men and their wives. It allowed service men and their wives to register once as service voters and then to remain as service voters throughout the period of the husband's service career, with the commensurate privileges of proxy and postal voting.
So far, so good, but the Act went further and provided that service men and their wives not only can but must register as service voters, failing which they lose their right to be registered at all. Many wives were incensed by this, and the issue became a cause célèbre in service areas. Many wives remonstrated and said that they were being treated as part and parcel of their husbands—as a kind of bag and baggage—and maintained that they were persons, not service persons. They objected violently and therefore did not register as service personnel. Indeed, the issue was so serious that I called for an emergency debate in the House on the problems of non-registration of wives of service men.
Now that the registers have been completed in service areas we can see the effect of the Bill for the first time. The


only constituency that I can speak of with real knowledge is my own. In my constituency of Gosport there are about 49,000 people on the electoral register, and it is now estimated that about 10,000 adults have not registered although they are eligible to do so. It is believed that most of these are wives of service men who object to registering as service voters. This means that one in six of the adults in my constituency is not on the register. The Minister knows my views on this, and to repeat them further would be out of order.
But there is an effect on the maximum amount of expenses that can be employed in these constituencies where there is a shortfall in the number of registered adults To take a constituency of 60,000 in a borough, it would mean that there is the basic £1,750, plus 1½ on the 60,000, making a total of £2,650, whereas with 50,000 people in a borough the total would be £2,500, which means that there is a shortfall of £150 in the amount of expenses that are allowed. It means, in fact that instead of campaigning as if one were campaigning for 60,000 people one is campaigning as if one were doing it for 50,000 people.
One may say that that is not a particularly large shortfall, that it is only 5 per cent., and what is £150 anyway, but as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) well knows—and I do too,—it is necessary to use the whole of one's expenses if one is mounting a serious campaign.

Mr. Rooker: It is necessary to use the whole of one's expenses to get votes. If people are not on the register they cannot vote. I do not see the purpose of the new clause.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman will see the purpose very shortly. Some of the expenses in an election are fixed. For example, there are the cost of hire of halls, telephone expenses and the cost of an election address when it is sent to registered voters. But many of the expenses are not fixed. Many vary. The cost of printing leaflets for general distribution, lapel stickers, car stickers and window posters is the largest single item in any campaign, and most printing is done not on the basis of the number of people who are registered as electors but on the number of people in the constituency.
When leaflets are printed for distribution, they are normally not dropped carefully through the doors of people who are registered on the electoral register but are dropped through every door. Similarly, when a street distribution is made of leaflets or car stickers, it is made to all people in the street rather than on the basis of a cross-examination of the people as to whether they are on the electoral register.

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman is mystifying me. Surely, one knows the number of electors that one has only from the electoral register. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there is a mythical gross total including people who are not on the register. Where does he obtain these figures? The only relevant numbers on which any candidate can base his campaign expenses are the numbers of those who are actually on the register.

Mr. Viggers: I tried very hard, I hope successfully, to stay within the rules of order. For that reason I may perhaps have skated over some of the finer points, which would explain the argument to the hon. Gentleman.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I appreciate the difficulties. I have three cemeteries in my constituency.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to you, Sir Myer, for that intervention, which was most helpful, as always. The residents of your three cemeteries, I suggest, do not drive cars that might require car stickers, do not parade around the streets, with the possibility of being given literature, and do not live in houses, and therefore are not the recipients of printed literature.
The fact is that it is known and can be established that there are 60,000 people over the age of 18 living in my constituency, and only 50,000 of them are on the electoral register. I ask the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) to take that as read. I can assure him that it is true. I trust that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr appreciates the point I am making is in no sense a party political point. It is a genuine point, and I maintain that it is worthy of consideration.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what appears to me to


be a remarkably altruistic attempt to ingratiate himself with all those who cannot vote for him, but is it not the case that the amount of money expended on leafleting through doors—that is, excluding the free post—must be very small, even to the percentage of people the hon. Gentleman is talking about, so we are talking about only very tiny sums?

Mr. Viggers: I accept that we are talking about comparatively small amounts, but they are significant, and equity demands that there should be some recognition of not just the number of people on the electoral register but the number of people who are within the constituency.
I do not believe that the average candidate when campaigning asks each person to whom he speaks, each person to whom he distributes literature, whether he or she is on the electoral register. He gives people material whether or not they are on the register.
It is wrong that candidates in constituencies such as those I have named should be allowed the amount of money for nine people when they must aim at 10, or that in the extreme case which I have quoted, and of which I have special knowledge, they are speaking to six people and have only the maximum expenditure appropriate for five.
The clause is of narrow application, but that does not diminish the importance of the principle that it maintains. All I ask is that the Secretary of State be empowered, if he thinks it appropriate, to take cognisance of the shortcomings in the registration in the electoral roll by deeming an appropriate number of persons to be entered in the register. This would have the effect of increasing the maximum expenditure, but would have no effect on the electoral register itself. I hope that the clause will be regarded as fine tuning, the purpose of which is to ensure equity in a small number of cases.

Mr. Rooker: When I read this new clause I thought that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was trying to do something about people who had been missed off the register. I thought that he was trying to get them put back. I have a case in my constituency in which the electoral officer is obtaining a writ of mandamus to place on the register a total

of 70 people—soon I hope, because time is important.

Mr. James Molyneaux: For all the hon. Member knows he may have another year.

Mr. Rooker: That is so, but the principle which the hon. Member brings to the Committee tonight is extremely dangerous. If extended, if the hon. Member wins his case, next year or some other time, a candidate could come along and say "I'm getting expenses for these people. What about votes from them? Why cannot we have a situation whereby they turn up at the polling station and say 'I'm not actually registered but I live in this constituency and all the candidates have spent money on my behalf. Therefore I feel that I ought to vote.'?"
I do not know much about the point raised by the hon. Member concerning the service voter. It is a narrow point, but the clause goes much wider. To talk about Kensington and Chelsea when people could be registered in another part of the country leaves our election law open to much greater abuse than the sort of abuse I drew to the attention of hon. Member earlier. I hope that my right hon. Friend will throw this out.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), both now and earlier, sum up my view about this new clause. There is a problem of under-registration in different parts of the country. This concerns a high proportion of those in the 16½ to 18 age group and the immigrant population. Further, some electoral registration officers are more successful than others in obtaining maximum registration.
The current method of registering service wives was brought about as a result of the introduction of a Private Member's Bill, introduced by a Tory Member. Now the Tories are complaining that it does not work. It may be that such a Bill is not the appropriate way to proceed with these matters, although I concede that in this instance Mr. Speaker's Conference had considered the matter. While there may be problems with under-registration and with service wives, the difficulty seems to involve more than this. This should have been thought of when the Private Member's


Bill was introduced. Many service wives do not want to be treated as appendages of the services and prefer to make their own arrangements. There is nothing that can be done about that before 16th February of next year, until which time the current register will be used.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that I should make an estimate of the amount of under-registration in an area. It is being suggested, in other spheres, that I should say when a march should be banned and I reply that it must be done by someone with an objective knowledge of public order because I would be making a subjective judgment. Even if I were to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests the people concerned would not be able to vote anyway. This is a misconceived idea. It is not the way to tackle the issue. I believe that, on the wider subject, we ought to leave things for a while. There is a register, and if there is a General Election before 16th February of next year it is that register on which the election will be fought. I do not propose to do anything about it. I recommend to the Committee that the new clause should not be approved.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

THEFT BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in tile Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to make two points which have caused me some concern as the Bill has passed through this House. I am still not convinced that it is all that wise to deal with the offence of deception when the law governing the two most common forms of deception—cheque frauds and

frauds with bank cards—is still under review by the Law Commission.
The Law Commission will have to be careful not to get into a muddle, especially since clause 2(3) makes payment by cheque an offence when it is clear that the Criminal Law Revision Committee report shows that it does not think that the criminal law should punish generally for cheque offences. It looks as if there could be some conflict there.
My second point I have made often and strongly, and I will not repeat it in the form that I have done so before. It is that the idea of reforming the law of theft should not just be a way of making the law comprehensible to judges. It should also, and predominantly be, a way of making the law simple for jurymen to consider. Clause 2 as it stands, although it is an improvement, is still, in my view, far too complex and will be very difficult to explain to a jury.
I made an attempt to simplify it in Committee, and the Minister of State was kind enough to send me a letter commenting upon that simplification and pointing out that there could be faults in it. I am grateful to him for his letter. As a result of it, I hope that he, or, if not he, the House of Lords, will consider sympathetically a simplification of the clause, which would thereby merely state that
a person who by any deception dishonestly and with intent to make permanent default causes his or another legally enforceable payment to be reduced, delayed or avoided, shall be guilty of an offence.
Then we should include another half subsection in relation to the definition of liability in relation to compensation. By that redefinition of the clause, we would reduce 206 words to 57.
I am still not saying that it would be perfect redrifting of clause 2, but it would be a lot better than some we have seen, and I think that it merits consideration. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that he will look at it again. I have handed him a copy of what I suggest, with one or two comments, and perhaps the House of Lords would also look at it again.
I repeat: it is all very well to simplify the other branches of the law and then seem to go out of our way to make complicated the law of deception. I think


that it can be simply written so that it can be put to jurymen in a way that they can understand, and so that we can, by that means, effect an aim of our criminal law —that is, effectively to bring to justice those who offend against the rules. I hope that some of my remarks tonight and in Committee will be looked at again before the Bill becomes law.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I usually find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but I do not do so on this occasion. It is tempting, when one aspect of what one is doing is still under review by another body, to put off what one is doing until further consideration, but I think that we want to keep on with this.
What we are doing is getting rid of section 16(2) of the present Theft Act, which has been described as a "legal nightmare". The law will be better for it having been removed from the statute book. By common consent, clause 1 of this new Bill is an improvement, although there has been some discussion from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton about clause 2.
I express the hope that the other place will find our amendments to its measure acceptable, so that this Bill can be passed into law as speedily as possible and so that we may make sure that it passes into law before other events take place, which we Conservatives hope will happen speedily.
Of course, if there is some way of simplifying clause 2 without detracting from it, or if there is any reason to believe that some parts of the clause are abstruse, despite what I have said one would hope that the other place will take the opportunity of putting it right, so long as it can be done within the time scale available for the completing of this Bill.
My hon. Friend has read his proposed new clause and was kind enough to supply me with a copy. There are some demonstrable gaps in it. I shall not take time to refer to them now, because my main purpose is to express the hope that there will be no further delays in this measure and, in particular, that the changes we have made will prove acceptable to the other place.

11.21 p.m.

The Minister of State for the Home Department (Mr. Brymnor John): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want first to thank the Committee for the way in which it helped in the passage of the Bill. I also thank the CLRC, under both its chairmen, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Justice Lawton, for the work which it has put in.
I shall look at the new draft of clause 2 as proposed by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but undertaking to look does not mean an undertaking to agree. He and I will correspond in the usual way in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that the question of conspiracies to cheat and defraud is still being considered by the Law Commission. He will know that the Criminal Law Revision Committee checked this very point with the Law Commission before it started its work on this particular matter. The Law Commission expressed itself as satisfied that we should legislate on this matter in advance of the other. That being so, I see no inhibition on our doing so. Like the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), I believe that the law will be a great deal better than it has been in the past for both judges and the lay public. It will take some of the lottery out of trials on this most complicated of all subjects. For that reason I hope that the other place will see fit to agree with the amendments that we have now inserted.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The subject of tonight's debate has proved more timely than I had thought, because at the end of last week the Scottish Education Department presented its annual report for 1977 to the Secretary of State for Scotland. These annual reports seem to be getting thinner each year. This year's annual report seems


to be little more than a bibliography of departmental circulars.
However, tonight I should like to press the Minister to outline what the role of the Scottish Education Department is in four broad areas of educational policy in Scotland. The first concerns teaching resources, particularly the vexed issue of composite classes. I read in the annual report that:
A recent feature of school organisation in some areas has been an increase in the number of composite classes containing pupils of more than one age group in schools where such classes have not been traditional.
I hope that the Minister will give some more information than that available in the SED report about the extent to which we now have composite classes in many urban areas in Scotland.
I am aware that sheer geography has made composite classes a fact of life in many areas in rural Scotland as an alternative to travelling long distances or to the prospect of youngsters having to live away from home, but there is growing concern in many city areas about the prevalence of composite classes. In Glasgow in the session that has just ended, there were 514 composite classes in our primary schools. Of these 159 were under-25-pupil classes, and the other 355 were over the limit.
We must acknowledge that the national teacher-pupil ratios are better than they have ever been. This is largely the result of improved teacher supply, and a marked decline in the school rolls. Yet the Minister will be aware of the resolution passed at the annual general meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is the largest of the various teaching organisations in Scotland. The EIS resolution said:
Members should be advised to refuse to teach composite classes containing more than 25 pupils as from the start of the session 1978/79.
What is the Scottish Education Department doing to avoid Scottish education being plunged, this winter, into discontent and disruption? Local education authorities are having to steer between circular 819 and the Red Book staffing standards as laid down by the Department, and the requirements of contract.
The Minister will be aware of the great concern that would flow from the refusal of teachers to take classes of more than

25 pupils. It seems strange that there should be a growth in the number of composite clases at a time when there are questions about whether it is educationally necessary, in the light of the current teacher supply situation. Moreover, the surplus of young teachers from the colleges and universities is not being absorbed by the job creation programme, or by local authority recruitment. The resources are there if we care to make use of them.
The second matter of concern about teaching resources relates to educational priority areas. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister in trying to obtain additional teaching resources in areas of urban deprivation. I am aware of the additional 84 teachers obtained in Glasgow through the urban aid programme, and the additional teachers obtained in Strathclyde and four other regions, as a result of circular 991 last September. However, there seemed to be a fair amount of delay in implementing that scheme. One suspected that there was a fair amount of—dare I say it?—"red tape" coming from St. Andrews House.
The Minister may recall that at the beginning of last year I wrote to him about the possibility of a number of areas becoming educational priority areas so that additional teaching resources could be put into them. The Minister replied to me on 22nd February last year that he was anxious to avoid any formal designation because stigma could arise in certain areas. However, he pointed out that there had been one experiment in Scotland and three in England in educational priority areas.
I gathered that the one in Scotland was the Dundee study, the report of the research project sponsored by the Scottish Education Department and Social Research Council. However, it seemed to be fairly inconclusive about the extent to which such extra assistance succeeds.
Nevertheless, as I have told the Minister privately, recently I have seen some assessments which secondary schools have been making of the primary school intake for next session. It is somewhat disturbing to see figures showing that a fairly high proportion of youngsters of 11 or 12 will enter secondary schools next session with reading ages of 8, 9 or 10. There may be arguments among educationists about the test methods used, but


the fact remains that there is a problem. Although we are prepared to employ remedial teachers at secondary school level, I suggest that there is an urgent need to improve the supply of remedial teachers in the primary schools, otherwise the position will be upside down. Because we shall not be helping youngsters while they are still in the primary school, we shall wait until they go into the secondary schools and become caught up in the problems of transition and a much wider curriculum. The fact that we recently had to launch an adult literacy programme is evidence of the extent to which we are not quite catching up on the problems in either the primary or secondary schools.
The Minister is aware that the job creation programme has come to an end and that neither the youth opportunities programme nor the special temporary employment arrangement helps those young teachers who hitherto had been absorbed in essentially non-teaching employment. Frankly, I could not care what mechanism is used, whether it be urban aid or the provisions of circular 991, but I should like to think that the Minister and his Department are currently examining ways to step up the numbers of teachers who might be available for those areas of urban deprivation.
Employers are concerned about the reading and numeracy ability of many youngsters. Therefore, this is a crucial area.
An article in the Glasgow Herald on 24th June pointed out that between November 1975 and December 1977 3,303 qualified students were able to make use of the job creation programme in 272 projects. These exercises cost more than £3·3 million. I suggest that it would often be easier to get value for money if we put such amounts into the education budget rather than into alternative means of taking on teaching staff.
A series of educational initiatives have been taken in the past few years. I remember taking up with the Minister's predecessor the possibility of setting up a Royal Commission to consider various aspects of education in Scotland. At that time I was told that the SED had just set up the Pack committee to inquire into truancy and indiscipline in schools in Scotland. I was amazed that there was

no primary school teacher among the membership of that committee. We also had the Dunning committee, to review examination assessments in the third and fourth years of education and the Munn committee, to consider the content of third and fourth year curricula.
Scottish education has had to swallow a series of reports in the past year or two, but all three reports have been published for nearly a year and so far we have had no clear indication of the Department's thinking on them.
The Minister knows my views about changing the examination system. I question whether the Department would be prepared to grant the considerable finances that might be necessary to meet the cost of a fundamental upheaval in our examination system—quite apart from the difficulties that would arise for teachers, employers, pupils and parents in getting accustomed to the new system.
I do not want to dwell too long on the three reports, but the prevalence of truancy in many of our schools is serious. I hope that the Minister will comment on the problem of absenteeism and on the prevalence of absenteeism among teachers. Earlier this year, many of my colleagues and I were presented with an interesting document from the Educational Institute for Scotland entitled "Stresses and Strains in Teaching". That showed that a fair number of teachers are cracking up under the strain of teaching. Has the Department been considering this issue?
I understand that the Government consider that it would be desirable to set up a tertiary education council—that sounds like the top layer of a sandwich—or a higher education council as a forum for discussion of post-school education in Scotland. I am always a little sceptical of institutionalism as a means of resolving some of our educational problems.
It is a fact that the Scottish Education Department is not the Ministry responsible for the universities in Scotland. Having said that, in my view any higher education council ought to be representative of the whole of post-school education in Scotland, and must necessarily take all the further education colleges, central institutions and colleges of education, as well as the eight universities.


I should like to hear the views of the Minister on this matter.
I gather from statements that have been made that the work of the Scottish Technical Education Council and the Scottish Business Education Council would not be undermined in any way by the setting up of a higher education council in Scotland.
I urge the Minister to consider the extent to which technical and commercial colleges in Scotland play an important part in servicing local industries, because I feel, that it is crucial to manpower planning—which, incidentally, is now a function of the Scottish Office—that there should be a close response between the needs of local industry and the services which are available in our further education colleges.
I mention in passing, for example, the concern that exists about the present and future status of the Glasgow College of Technology, which is neither a central institution nor an ordinary further education college, since it is servicing a fairly wide regional area.
The Minister will be aware of the representations that have been made on the question of the extent to which Scottish Education Department views are coming across within the European Community. Obviously, representations at this level would have to be dealt with by national education Ministries, and it goes without saying that the DES is the lead Department in the United Kingdom, for no other reason than that it is also the Ministry concerned with university education. But I do not think that that absolves the Scottish Education Department from taking a close interest and becoming as closely involved as it can in the shaping of educational policies within the European Community.
Earlier this year I wrote to the Commission because, as I understood it, the Belgian Government—which has two Ministries of Education, one for the French-speaking population and another for the Dutch-speaking population—makes sure that both language interests are fully represented at EEC level. I was advised by the Commission's directorate-general for research, science and education in a letter of 17th January, that the composition of delegations to the

education committee is a matter for national Governments. In the case of Belgium, the delegation is normally representative of the ministries of both French and Dutch culture. It would seem to me that there really ought to be little or no problem in the Department's making sure that its views are fully aired at that level.
I have raised four broad issues on which I should like the Minister to comment briefly tonight. There was a time when the Scottish Education Department was reckoned to exercise a fairly tight control over education developments in Scotland. I was interested to note that in the evidence submitted by the Department to the Kilbrandon Commission this shifted in the mid-1960s to something more akin to the exercise of guidance. The Department is also the channel through which our education authorities in Scotland receive the bulk of their resources. There have been many initiatives in the last few years. What is the Department doing in those broad areas and in any other areas about which the Minister finds time to comment?

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important matters. He mentioned four broad issues and talked of several other important matters. As he covered a wide range of matters which affect different Departments it is not surprising that I have only seven minutes in which to respond. I do not complain about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Would the Minister like an extension?

Mr. McElhone: I should certainly like an extension in order to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) to make a further contribution. I fully recognise his deep interest in education. He worked in education before becoming a Member of Parliament and, with respect to other hon. Members, I know of no other hon. Member who has a keener interest in education than he. I hope he will understand if I do not cover adequately the issues that he raised. But I shall reply to him by letter and invite to have furthcr dialogue with me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be a long letter.

Mr. McElhone: Long or not, it is important that I should write to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend began by drawing attention to worries about standards of attainment by pupils in some parts of his constituency. But he need not feel too concerned about a fall in standards in schools in Scotland as a whole. Mr. Farquhar Mackintosh—a name which is known to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—has said that standards have not fallen but have improved in many areas. The evidence of the results of SCE examinations, the increasing proportion of qualified school leavers entering higher education, and the work of various research agencies on literacy and numeracy in primary and secondary schools, point to the fact that standards are being maintained.
I share my hon Friend's concern about what might be happening in individual schools.
I entirely agree with him that as additional resources become available for school staffing they should be used not to improve staffing standards generally but selectively wherever the need is greatest. With this in mind my right hon. Friend made additional resources available last year specifically for the employment of 500 extra teachers in schools serving urban areas of deprivation, including a number of schools in the hon. Member's constituency.
Approval was also given under the urban programme to the creation by Strathclyde of 84 additional teaching posts in certain schools in the Maryhill area and the East End of Glasgow. Both of these schemes will continue for a further two years.
But it is worth pointing out that it is for the education authority and head teachers concerned to deploy the additional staff in the ways that they think best, which can include those my hon. Friend has suggested. The provision for primary school staffing in rate support grant over the last few years has included an allowance for remedial teachers and visiting specialist teachers in primary schools.
In the RSG settlement for 1978–79, however, we have made additional provision for school staffing and have provided for further improvements in our expenditure plans for later years. It is for each authority to determine how the available resources should be used in the light of its own estimates of needs and priorities within its area. It is open to each of them to implement, if they wish the suggestions which my hon. Friend has made.
My hon. Friend spoke at some length, and quite rightly about remedial education. He drew attention, in particular, to the great needs of certain areas for remedial education. As someone who pays particular attention to SED reports, he will know of the report by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on the education of pupils with learning difficulties, published on 8th March. It was found that beyond the early primary years, few pupils had failed to achieve a reasonable competence in the early stages of reading, and the learning difficulties of most pupils arose not from lack of basic skills but from shortcomings in higher skills such as failure to grasp concepts and from failure to understand specialist terms. The pace and methods of presenting work were not always matched to the ability of pupils, and too little use was made of discussion.
The report suggests that most of the learning difficulties of pupils are best dealt with by their class teacher in the primary school and by the subject teacher in the secondary school. However, the report stresses the unique contribution which can be made by remedial specialists in providing intensive help for pupils who really need it.
Remedial specialists can also advise their colleagues. They are able to give short-term support to pupils with temporary problems, such as pupils returning from list D schools or from special education. Particularly on transfer from primary to secondary school, remedial specialists can do much to alleviate problems of transition. My right hon. Friend has commended this report to all teachers and hopes that it will be studied carefully.
My hon. Friend referred also to composite classes in primary schools. I know


that there has been a great deal of concern among some parents and teachers about the increase over the past year or two in the number of composite classes in primary schools. The organisation of classes is, of course, the responsibility of education authorities and their head teachers, and it is for them to determine, within the resources available to them, the organisation which best suits the circumstances of individual schools.
I hope that it will be recognised that within the rate support grant that my right hon. Friend has allocated to local authorities for the coming year there is an element for employing teachers above the agreed standards, which one normally calls the circular 819 or Red Book standards, but I do not deny that there are difficulties for local authorities, and it is only honest to point out that local authori-

ties have a choice within the allocations of rate support grant on how best they wish to use the money provided by my right hon. Friend.
I refer in passing to the SED report which my hon. Friend mentioned as getting thinner and thinner. There is a good reason for that. We decided that, in order to make the best use of the facts in the report, we would take out the statistical evidence and publish it from time to time—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.